Yep
6 Likes
Sheās a former federal prosecutor with presidential aspirations.
Sheās not bluffing.
28 Likes
Over and again, every time I see Harris in action I walk away impressed as hell.
You can almost hear a click as each step she makes snaps into place.
10 Likes
Remember Scalia refusing to recuse from a case concerning his duck-murdering buddy Darth Cheney? No consequences, except a win for evil.
5 Likes
My random thought generator went immediately here:
6 Likes
Thanks, I agree. I am not a law surgeon, but I seem to recall Scalia refusing to recuse himself from a decision where he very obviously had inappropriate involvement with one of the parties involved and being totally dismayed that he was just able to say āNo, I am able to exercise impartiality in this caseā and it was apparent there was no recourse to this happening.
5 Likes
He was evasive af. Both knew what was going on. I look forward to the follow-through.
1 Like
āIf youāve got the time, weāve got your fear: Muellerās here.ā
5 Likes
Why would he recuse? Supreme Court justices arenāt bound by the standard judicial ethics rules. He could be impeached for refusing to do so, or even indicted if such a corrupt bargain could be proved, but a president could also pardon him.
Itās possible that this would be a step too far for even the reactionaries on the court, but I wouldnāt bet on it. Gorsuch would go along, and Alito, and Thomasā¦
2 Likes
Personal integrity - in other words there is none
8 Likes
Well obviously he has been talking to some DC lawyers about the Mueller probe, otherwise he would just say no, but instead he asked for a roster of the firm to avoid giving an answer. The question is, why would a sitting judge be discussing the Mueller investigation with anyone? Heās a member of the judiciary, he should avoid the topic completely.
2 Likes
They are members of the bar and are subject to bar rules, but there is no separate code of ethics that applies to SCOTUS justices. The code of ethics for judges doesnāt extend. It is a norm, not a rule. The norm was violated, in my view, by Scalia, Thomas (and perhaps Souter) when they all ruled in the Bush v Gore case when each owed his job to an administration where Bushās dad was POTUS or VPOTUS.
That said, the rules of ethics matter. Legitimacy matters. Kavanaugh has not yet secured the votes needed. The more pressure you put on him, the chances of him breaking and offering recusal increase (that imho would lead to Trump withdrawing his nomination). If Trump withdraws his nomination, there will not be another one until after the election.
7 Likes
So then where in this process do we learn what she knows?
As a Judge on the DC Circuit, which is likely to hear some Trump related matters, wouldnāt a private conversation with counsel be somewhat questionable already?
1 Like
Who can forget Scaliaās refusal to recuse in 2004?
Invoking history, law and the upper social strata of Washington, Justice Antonin Scalia said on Thursday that he would not remove himself from a case before the Supreme Court involving his good friend, Vice President Dick Cheney.
In a 21-page memorandum, a rare public explanation and rarer still for describing what it means to have friends in the highest of places, Justice Scalia said it was not improper that he hunted ducks in Louisiana with Mr. Cheney in January, just three weeks after the court agreed to consider the case.
They never hunted in the same blind on that trip so everything was kosher.
3 Likes
Cheney said, āIf you recuse Iām gonna shoot you in the face!ā
4 Likes
I hope someone follows up with the obvious. Did Brett Kavanaugh discuss the Mueller investigation and his views of the presidential powers with Preshitident Skanky-Manslut, First Lady Iwanka Trump, anyone in the White House Counselās Office, the Chamber of Commerce, New York Stock Exchange, the NRA, Rudy Giulianiās office, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan or the leadership of the Republican Party.
1 Like
I think there is a witness from Kasowitzās firm coming. That is the only conclusion I can draw from this examination. The whole line of questioning was about boxing him in to keep him from denying every having spoken to any such person after he or she testifies. He did a minimally competent job of not admitting it so, she didnāt box him in, but she did manage to put in in the position of making a lie look more like a lie if he denies it once the witness testifies.
And if Iām right, expect that witness isnāt going to be testifying to any kinda sorta peripherally troubling things. Itās going to be a Molotov cocktail.
If Iām right, even now, his handlers are pumping him for who this witness might be (and either Kavenaugh knows exactly who sheās talking about or heās said so much stupid shit to so many people he canāt pinpoint who it could be) and the Rās are preparing to impeach and, if possible, slander and defame that witness into oblivion.
And we have now reached the Debbie Downer part of this comment: come hell or high water, no matter how many rules they have to brazenly break, how much contempt they have to show for the rule of law, how utterly and completely they shame themselves, Every. Single. One. of. The. Republicans. Will. Vote. To. Confirm.
This is a fight worth having for a lot of reasons, but he is going to be confirmed. And, brace yourselves, because if Schumer knows they have a lock on confirmation, heās going to give Manchin the high sign to vote to confirm as well. I cannot for the fucking life of me understand how the Manchins of the world think doing shit like that earns them a single net vote in a close election, or in any way immunizes them from the lying attack ads, but it seems to be some kind of article of faith among Democrats elected against all odds or reason from a deep Red state that it does and no amount of data or common sense can change it.
13 Likes
One key point that came to me last night when I watched this exchange is in his responsesā¦he knows of course that she knows something. But what I am guessing is going through his mind isā¦āwhich inappropriate conversation I had over there, does she know about?ā. Not āDoes she know about THE inappropriate conversationāā¦his body language is much more telling than that. He doesnāt respond because he has had several, and is unsure which one she is referring.
Even if he wasnāt giving assurances that he would have Trumpās back in exchange for the nomination, just about every other conversation he would have with Trumpās lawyers would be highly inappropriate. Even chiming in an opinion upon a particular legal strategyās viability is out of bounds for a circuit court judge
11 Likes
I was thinking that the committee has some email or other correspondence, or that Senator Harris and the Dems have been conducting their own oppo research and came across the Kasowitz connection. I do not know if the Dems do have proof. Itās really not their burden. But if Kavanaugh stays with his muddled answer 24 hours after being asked the question, it shows that he is hiding something. If Harris then reveals her proof, it will expose Kavanaugh for yet another felony for lying/concealing material information in a Senate hearing. Even if she has no further proof, Harris can set in motion events where the evidence will emerge as the press may already be digging around Kasowitz and Kasowitz himself may disclose it to distance himself from ethics issues.
I do agree that the GOP will do whatever it can to push Kavanaugh through no matter what, because corrupt is as corrupt does. But the chances that Murkowski, Flake and/or Collins decide to pass on this also increase. All weāre playing for is to keep this thing close and see if we can make a play at the end of the game. We are the underdogs but we should fight even if we end up losing.
17 Likes