General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsKavanaugh wasn't vetted.
The FBI and or the White House lawyers covered up Kavanaugh's record instead of conducting an investigation. I understand that Democratic Senators have written a stern letter to FBI Director Wray but to you legal people out there, what is the procedure for removing Kavanaugh in light of his record was not investigated but instead covered up. I mean we had a reputable person (Ford) accuse him of sexual assault.
Democrats can't allow his confirmation to stand without a fight. (A fight is not a stern letter)
Notice how the MSM also covers this up.
Lovie777
(12,226 posts)mountain grammy
(26,608 posts)Locrian
(4,522 posts)They didnt do anything then, they wont do anything now (prove me wrong)
Makes me sick
blueinredohio
(6,797 posts)2Gingersnaps
(1,000 posts)He has been a Federalist Society darling since back in his "leaker in Chief" days with Ken Starr. With Bill Barr's track record at DOJ you would think the Federalist Society would be quietly heading for the exit. You would think. It seems sexual assault and white color crime are "conservative family values." The only thing Monica did wrong was consent.
Scrivener7
(50,934 posts)pay off all his bad debts as he was being nominated.
One and a half million is a cheap price for getting a Supreme Court Justice in your pocket.
SergeStorms
(19,192 posts)you'd have to look any further than the Federalist Society and it's membership. They wanted Beer Boy McRapist on the SC badly, and they got him.
JT45242
(2,259 posts)If he is convicted of million dollar tax fraud he would be subject to up to 5 years in prison, a huge fine, penalties, and interest.
If it is bribery -- he also gets time.
Should not be that hard to get rid of this criminal.
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,988 posts)Buckeyeblue
(5,499 posts)He would need to have paid taxes on any funds to pay off his debts. Subpoena his tax returns. He would also need to disclose other income as part of his requirement as a judge.
Scrivener7
(50,934 posts)fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)Loki Liesmith
(4,602 posts)gab13by13
(21,286 posts)Are you a Constitutional lawyer?
CrackityJones75
(2,403 posts)Do we?
DetroitLegalBeagle
(1,919 posts)In the Senate, no. If impeachment were to actually happen, it would end the same was as trump, impeached in the House, acquitted in the Senate.
FBaggins
(26,727 posts)If there were a legal requirement that a President perform a full background check before nominating someone and it could be shown that it was intentionally skipped
then there might be a remedy (if that imaginary law provided one).
But there is no such requirement. A President can nominate just about anyone
and the 51+ senators who vote to confirm can do so on any basis that they choose.
Senate Democrats insisted that a full investigation of the allegations needed to be performed
but all that really means is if you want me to consider voting for his confirmation, I require an investigation.
There is no mechanism to go back in time and convince a few more senators to vote against confirmation.
no_hypocrisy
(46,061 posts)I doubt it would be successful or worth the time/money necessary for the hearings.
Congress may be able to impeach, but the Senate would never remove him.
They got away with it.
gab13by13
(21,286 posts)and made to testify? Should not the White House lawyers be called on the carpet and made to testify?
If nothing can be done and Wray was in on it he needs to be removed. Doing nothing does make me unhappy as I was just asked.
Wray seems to be a bit shady the more we learn about him.
ariadne0614
(1,708 posts)lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)he cannot be trusted.
paleotn
(17,902 posts)is push Biden to fire Wray if he was involved in the sham investigation. White House folks who were involved are probably long gone with the change in administrations. Hate it just as much as you do, but it is what it is.
This just underscores the huge importance of SCOTUS nominations and the fact we really need to expand the court to dilute the impact of past shenanigans.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)of the FBI. I read that it was just a tradition that the FBI was independent. And it was trump who started acting like they worked for him alone. Remember trump tried to get a loyalty pledge of Comey.
I don't know anything about Christopher Wray. Just a casual observation he seems very low key. He may be a person that just does what he's told and doesn't blab about it? But also strikes me as maybe someone who would fully comply with a subpoena?
I think he is the key to a lot of information. Like I've said many times before Phil Mudd, who guests on CNN, said that the FBI would rise to the occasion and work day and night to uncover as much as I could during that one to two week fake extension of investigation. He said that day I will never forget, that the FBI would probably put Dr Ford in a car and drive her up and down that neighborhood until she recognized the house where the attack happened. Of course now we know none of that happened and they didn't even interview her.
So obviously something happened. Phil Mudd ran the DC FBI field office so he would know what should have happened.
2Gingersnaps
(1,000 posts)it has always been an ultra conservative organization, but damn, Mueller was a true conservative, a true believer, a Dudley Do Right. Which makes the idea that it was so easily castrated by Trump all the more appalling, the only thing tRump has always been is a criminal, he was never conservative or Republican. Imagine Al Capone running for President and neutering Elliot Ness. That is exactly what happened. Timothy Wiener wrote excellent books on the history of both the CIA and the FBI. There is a reason that certain people are uncomfortable with teaching real history, it ain't pretty. Hoover was a fascist and the CIA from their inception after WWII were WASP clueless wonders, bordering on homicidal screw ups-and they were in stiff competition with the FBI for power, even though the FBI was supposed to be domestic and CIA international. And that is being generous.
doc03
(35,321 posts)the Whitehouse. All we can do is write a stern letter.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)At least he got impeached for the being a traitor.
70sEraVet
(3,483 posts)And begin impeachment proceedings, where all the evidence is brought forward publicly. Let the Senate Repubs vote the impeachment down, and use that as a driving force for the midterms.
NJCher
(35,646 posts)even if we don't quite have the senators needed, it can still be made an issue: it can show them for the crooked operators they are.
This especially: Let the Senate Repubs vote the impeachment down, and use that as a driving force for the midterms.
Champp
(2,114 posts)brewens
(13,558 posts)I was certain that if Ford's allegations were true, and I think they are, along with stories about his drinking, quite a few people would come forward with more incidents. I was pretty sure something like this had gone on, but hoped the new administration would look into it.
I'd love to see hearings and testimony from the reliable people that came forward. If a guys a sex offending alcohol junkie, there's never just one incident. There may have been quite a bit about his gambling problems and the debt too.
wryter2000
(46,026 posts)But not if they interfere with the 1/6 investigation.
I imagine it would make him miserable. Id like the Federalist Society exposed to the general public. I wonder if someone there broke the law.
2Gingersnaps
(1,000 posts)He is the Gish Gallop of corruption. He threw so much shit at the wall Uncle Joe and an independent DOJ could spend eight years investigating and prosecuting that alone, if white color crime was actually a crime in this country. It was a four year official Russia style kleptocracy. If he had not ran for President would he ever have been arrested? He has a long track record of lawsuits, that has been the only sanction that really hit him, and it didn't hit him hard enough, obviously.
melm00se
(4,989 posts)there are only 3 ways that they can leave office:
1. resignation/retirement
2. death
3. impeachment
Amishman
(5,554 posts)As frustrating as it is, we're stuck with him for a generation
gab13by13
(21,286 posts)if Kavanaugh had been a Biden nominee what would Republicans be doing right now?. I know this they would have this issue as the top narrative in the MSM. Every damn Congressional Republican would be on TV in front of a microphone.
it could be taken up at a later date if we were to win more senate seats.
I guess I'm just not as willing as others to shrug my shoulders and say they won. Never say never.
Amishman
(5,554 posts)It might seem like surrender, but grounded expectations keeps my blood pressure in check
Polybius
(15,367 posts)And if we ever did, 5 of them would be conservative.
JT45242
(2,259 posts)What happens tto a judge serving time?
We know that McConnell et al would probablynot impeach. Is there anything statutory that addresses this. (realizingthat there probably isn't because politicians of earlier eras could not imagine a senate that would not remove a convicted criminal regardless of party)
melm00se
(4,989 posts)there is zero statutory thing that can override the Constitution.
While Article III does contain the language "good behavior", the Constitution is silent on the power to remove upon "bad" behavior. It has always been assumed that judges can be removed under the impeachment powers vested in Article I.
In response to a series of impeachments of federal judges during the 1980s (Claiborne, Hastings and, most notably, Nixon), the Congress convenes as National Commission on Judicial Discipline and Removal. They produced the Report of the National Commission on Judicial Discipline and Removal.
The Commission's reports stated:
- The Commission recommends retaining the political mechanism of impeachment by
the House and trial by the Senate as now provided in the Constitution. The
impeachment process is the sole appropriate means for the removal of life-tenured
judges.
- The Commission recommends against a constitutional amendment under which
convicted judges would be removed automatically.
- The Commission recommends against the creation of a new organ of government
that would have the authority to discipline and remove federal judges.
- The Commission opposes the suggestion that Congress should be able to determine
by statute the way in which federal judges are removed
- The Commission opposes any proposal under which the Supreme Court would
participate in the removal of federal judges.
- The Commission concludes that the current constitutional standard for
impeachment, as interpreted over the years, has been adequate to its purpose and
recommends that it not be amended.
There is also a significant question of separation of powers. If Congress were to legislate the ability to remove justices, this may give them a much higher level of influence on the judicial branch which may create a power imbalance within the federal government which runs contrary to the underlying US governmental principles. (But I am sure that some will say something the effect "but but but this is a unique situation" all the while missing the fact that laws created persist and can be used a year, decade or more later in situations there were never intended).
Danascot
(4,690 posts)can an SC judge carry on with his job while in prison?
Under those circumstances anybody with a shred of decency would resign but we know the GQP doesn't resign, no matter what.
fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)and still collect his benefits and pay.
The answer of course is impeachment. But you have to get the Senate to agree.
The reality is that Kavanaugh isn't going anywhere, and there won't be any hearings on it.
Trueblue Texan
(2,424 posts)He might actually be interested in leaving on his own if they find the right dirt.
HariSeldon
(455 posts)It's still a crime to lie under oath to Congress, and now Biden's attorney general (Garland) is the one who handles prosecution of Congressional referrals, and Daschle is the one in charge of making referrals. If Kavanaugh lied under oath in his hearings, we can't be sure we could impeach him, but it might be possible to jail him. And it might be easier to impeach a convicted Supreme Court justice than it would be to end his judicial career today.
gab13by13
(21,286 posts)Republicans would be doing something if the shoe were on the other foot.
If I remember correctly Manchin voted to confirm and Murkowski voted no.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)Definitely we should at least get rid of Wray and do a proper investigation.
Fully publicize the results.
Put Boof on trial if possible.
hadEnuf
(2,184 posts)But stern letters seem to be the limit of our ire so far....
leftyladyfrommo
(18,868 posts)gab13by13
(21,286 posts)but it is doing a lot of harm to our democracy.
sop
(10,144 posts)leftyladyfrommo
(18,868 posts)TheRickles
(2,053 posts)Mark Judge - why was he never interviewed and interrogated? I never understood that huge omission. Someone was protecting him.
2Gingersnaps
(1,000 posts)He wrote a book on the subject of being a teenage black out drunk and recovery. Apparently Bart O'Kavanaugh (Judge was the one who gave him that nom de guerre) never heard the "you are known by the company you keep" in Bible study or Chapel.
keithbvadu2
(36,724 posts)A deliberately limited, sham 'investigation'.
cab67
(2,992 posts)even if removing Kavanaugh isn't a realistic prospect.
I want the asterisk next to his name in history books to be as large as possible.
I want him to become a campaign issue. If you vote for someone like Trump, this will happen. Don't let it happen again.
I want to rub him in the face of those who declined to vote in 2016 because Hillary Clinton wasn't ideologically pure enough for them. Vengeful of me? Yes. But there are times when it can be justified.
And I want him to be forced to address all of this in public.
cheri010353
(127 posts)is to expand the Supreme Court now so his vote will be diluted.
librechik
(30,674 posts)wryter2000
(46,026 posts)Hearings might be helpful to encourage that.
wryter2000
(46,026 posts)Hearings might be helpful to encourage that.
oasis
(49,365 posts)hurple
(1,306 posts)Why this revelation is at all a surprise. The whole thing smacked of sham from the beginning to the end. I never once believed anyone vetted anything to do with him. Everything from Flake walking out to the final vote was nothing but a vaudeville revue show put on in an attempt to fleece the rubes.
The fact that this revelation is such a shock shows it worked.
Everything Republicans say and do, and everything they say they are doing, is a lie. Everything. If they ever had any truth, honor, or dignity in that party it is long gone.
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)No surprise at all.
FM123
(10,053 posts)(from 2019 Vox article) Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee called for the FBI to investigate the truthfulness of statements made in relation to these allegations during Kavanaughs confirmation process.
But when it comes to his testimonies about alleged sexual misconduct, Kavanaugh was directly asked about drinking in high school and his behavior in college, which are related to the allegations of assault. If he deliberately misled a senator, that could qualify as perjury.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/15/20866829/brett-kavanaugh-perjury-confirmation-hearing-deborah-ramirez-new-allegations
YoshidaYui
(41,831 posts)He can never be removed??? That Has to change.
DetroitLegalBeagle
(1,919 posts)Any changes would require a Constitutional Amendment.
fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)Generic Other
(28,979 posts)Subsection (a) of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 prohibits a person in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the federal government from knowingly and willfully (1) falsifying, concealing or covering up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) making any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) making or using any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry
And 18 U.S.C. § 1505 and 18 U.S.C. § 1512 similarly prohibit corruptly obstructing, influencing or impeding any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.
The primary difference between perjury and laws like 1001? Perjury comes with this pre-warning in the form of the oath to tell the truth. With 1001, theres no such pre-warning. If two F.B.I. agents approach you and immediately start asking questions in a seemingly friendly, relaxed manner, your telling a lie can lead to 1001 charges. And the lie does not need to be overt or complex; it can sometimes be falsely denying something or intentionally creating a misimpression. The fact that your discussion is not under oath and that the agents havent said that lying to them may be a crime does not absolve you of a criminal violation.
https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2017/11/how-lying-to-the-us-government-can-land-you-in-jai
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)1) Kavenaugh and trump role before and during investigation.
--Who paid off Kav debt?
--Did Kavenaugh leak Dr Ford's name? (Knowing his drinking buddy was there and could refute the whole thing)
2) the original sham "investigation" of Kav.
-- who muzzled the FBI? Obviously it was trump, but how?
-- would Wray or anyone else in FBI truthfully tell all?
3) investigating the whole thing now
-- would it just be like 1-6 where no one talks? ( Fear of trump?) After all, the gop's ultimate goal was getting someone on the supreme Court who might be able to overturn Roe versus Wade - their constituents want.
4) getting rid of Kavenaugh
--totally dependent on outcome of #1 - #3
MyMission
(1,849 posts)And the GQP is so unscrupulous as a group/cult. They refuse to testify, and lie and obfuscate if they are compelled. The SC majority was their ultimate goal, and they figure they won.
We need answers and should pursue the questions you posed. The msm is reporting on it and need to keep doing so.
I believe that until we have a supermajority we won't be able to remove the frat boy, no matter what any investigations reveal. I think Wray should be dismissed and interviewed.
This whole thing is a big pile of... And digging in it will unearth more and more.
And what will they/we do with all the crap we uncover?
Yet another battle in the the fight of good versus evil.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)Think I'd start with subpoening Wray & other FBI leaders who were privy to the Kavanaugh investigation. You could make it about the tips not being a followed up on. In other words focus in on the investigation itself. That way you'd have some basis to go further. Say they find out they didn't look at kavanaugh's financials, then you could move forward to find out who paid off his debt.
MyMission
(1,849 posts)And I have a visual component in my mind that often helps me group things in order.
But I just see a big pile of crap being excavated, which leads to smaller piles of crap everywhere.
Trying to clean it up will be messy and may soil those pushing to dig here and there but it needs to be done. Some want to start as you suggest, while others want to attack from various angles.
I'm on the sidelines cheering on the process. Hopefully they'll hit a treasure trove of misdeeds and criminal activities in and under the pile. Then there will be piles of evidence, still covered in crap, that will need to be addressed. It all will lead back to 45 and his cronies, followers, enablers and handlers.
I agree Wray is a good starting point. I'm glad it's being reported on MSM. He needs to be fired so he can be interviewed without having his position to shield him. I suspect we've been investigating kavanaugh's debts and payments on some level already.
Looking forward to reading more about all this being investigated.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)In fact on my list to look up is how they found out that the tips were ignored? Or that the tips were sent directly to FG?
I also don't know how various House and Senate committees decide what they're going to investigate. Nor what happens if there is an offense that spans multiple committees? But my common sense tells me that a committee can't just up and investigate, say Kavanaugh's finances without a cause.
Guess that's all I'm saying is if there is any coordination among various entities they need to brainstorm an overall approach. Also that saying applies you don't know what you don't know. So you start where the most base data can be determined.
malaise
(268,846 posts)Notice how the MSM also covers this up.
fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)because he wasn't vetted?
Voluntary retirement, or Impeachment. That's it.
He isn't going anywhere.
GoCubsGo
(32,078 posts)Everything else could be dealt with. And, a lot of it obviously was, including his massive gambling debts, which magically disappeared. His alleged sexual assaults and other bad behavior got the usual GOP "bash and blame the victims" response.
marieo1
(1,402 posts)Apparently, the way our government is set up, these derelicts get protected. Or maybe it's the way the republicans have fought many years to make it hard to fire or impeach a criminal. Probably because so many of them are criminals!!! And............it takes forever to get anything done. I love our country and just can't understand how we got so many greedy no-goods running our government. In every other business in the world, all you have to do is terminate someone and they are gone. Why not in USA and in our government? It just goes on and on forever, and then the media gets ahold of it and like a mad dog, they never let loose.
spanone
(135,812 posts)brewens
(13,558 posts)for that, and he wouldn't be the only one to know what that was. He had to be thinking he couldn't get him confirmed. No doubt why he wasn't vetted and the Democrats were denied documents they were entitled to.
GoodRaisin
(8,920 posts)who had information that should have been investigated by the FBI but were ignored. It should be properly investigated, but unfortunately the horse is already in the barn. It would probably take an impeachment to get rid of Kavanaugh and we all know how that would end.
clementine613
(561 posts)MarineCombatEngineer
(12,335 posts)clementine613
(561 posts)... but that doesn't change the fact that he needs to be impeached and imprisoned.
And imprisoning him doesn't require 67 votes. It requires a jury.
Blue Owl
(50,330 posts)No matter how much Lindsey Graham breathlessly fawns over him