Brett Kavanaugh Just Provided Compelling Evidence He Received Sexually Explicit Emails from Alex Kozinski

In his latest attempt to respond to the allegation that he attempted to rape Christine Blasey Ford, Brett Kavanaugh has let it be known he has calendars from 1982 that (he claims) exonerate him, as if teenagers create permanent records of the incidences where they drink illegally and attempt to rape their acquaintances.

But his claim to have records so readily at hand should focus new scrutiny at one of his answers — or rather, one of many refusals to answer — to a question from Patrick Leahy.

59. At your hearing last week, you and Senator Hirono had the following exchange:

SEN. HIRONO: Have you otherwise ever received sexually suggestive or explicit e-mails from Judge [Alex] Kozinski, even if you don’t remember whether you were on this “Gag List” or not?

KAVANAUGH: So Senator, let me start with no woman should be subjected to sexual harassment in the workplace, and … [sic] 7

You avoided answering the question. Please go through your files and emails, and definitively state whether you ever received sexually suggestive or explicit emails from Judge Kozinski, whether as part of his “Easy Rider Gag List” or otherwise.

RESPONSE: I do not remember receiving inappropriate emails of a sexual nature from Judge Kozinski. [bold original]

When it suits his interests, Kavanaugh has now shown, he has a heroic ability to find documentary evidence.

But here, for a period that lasted into much more recent time, Kavanugh insolently ignored a second direct request about whether he had documentary evidence that he knew of Kozinski’s harassment.

Which is pretty compelling evidence that such evidence does or once did exist.

image_print
152 replies
  1. Kim Kaufman says:

    Mitch McConnell must be really pissed. I forgot who… maybe Digby on Sam Seder’s show on Friday?… said McConnell advised against Kavanaugh because he thought there would be problems. Lol. So many right wing cranks to choose from and Trump insisted on this one.

    Wonder how Kennedy feels about his “legacy” now.

    • The Lorem Ipsum Conspiracy says:

      I think it is reasonable to wonder whether the fact that Kav is such a mess is a feature, not a bug.  Trump surrounds himself with people who are more than just deeply flawed.  Some of that is surely due to most high calibre people doing everything they can to keep their distance.  But that doesn’t explain Trump wanting to order off  menu at the Federalist Society to get Kav.  Perhaps it wasn’t just a matter of Kav being ideologically friendly to an unconstrained presidency, perhaps it was more about Kav being susceptible to blackmail that Trump and his cronies already knew about.

      The blackmail theory puts a new interpretation on that ridiculously sycophantic introductory statement from Kav at that announcement of his nomination because it would probably be true that no other president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to collect blackmail material on a Supreme Court nominee.

      • bmaz says:

        Lol, no. Kavanaugh has been being groomed for this moment since long before Trump was even considered a “Republican”. This is FedSoc craven shit, not Trumpian.

        • mister bunny says:

          But Kavanaugh wasn’t on the Federalist Society’s original list, he was added at Kennedy’s insistence as part of the deal to step down this summer. So if anything it’s a read on Kennedy (assuming he knew about the kind of person Kavanaugh was in HS/college … and beyond?).

            • Desider says:

              YeH, I saw this confusion elsewhere. Kavanaugh didn’t need to be on a list. And besides, that Trump-Kennedy backroom deal on resigning ignored the “list” – it was Kavanaugh or Kavanaugh or Kavanaugh or how about Kavanaugh”.

              • mister bunny says:

                Thanks for the clarification. My understanding was that Trump got his list from the Federal Society, and that list didn’t include Kavanaugh, but apparently that’s not correct, though I haven’t checked what you and bmaz have said yet. Either way, your point reinforces the fact that Kennedy is on the hook for Kavanaugh as much as anyone else.

      • Peterr says:

        This isn’t on Trump as much as it’s on the Right Wing. Kavanaugh is the poster boy for the Right Wing’s social ladder, having climbed every rung and kissed every ring along the way.

        Kavanaugh’s first clerkship was for the Appeals Court Judge who wrote the majority appeals court opinion in Planned Parenthood v Casey, upholding all but one of Pennsylvania’s restrictions on abortion. The ruling was later mostly-sorta overturned by SCOTUS, in one of those oddball cases where the basic holding of Roe was affirmed, but different constellations of justices approved or rejected parts of the PA laws.

        From there, Kavanaugh went to the chambers of Alex Kozinski of sexual harassment fame. He then spent a year working for Solicitor General Ken Starr, and then moved on to a SCOTUS clerkship with Kennedy. Starr then called him back to service as part of the Great Penis Hunt (h/t Charlie Pierce), with a starring role in the investigation of the murder (!) of Vince Foster, as well as helping to craft the final Starr Report.

        After all that, he went into private practice, where he served pro bono in support of Elian Gonzalez’ Florida relatives. He worked for Jeb Bush in trying to set up a religious school voucher program (struck down by the Florida SC), and then the Bush legal team fighting the Florida recount in the 2000 election. As a reward, he then served as an associate in the White House Counsel’s Office under Alberto Gonzalez. From there he moved over to being the WH Staff Secretary, overseeing all that went in and out of the Dubya oval office. With this kind of stellar rightwing record on issues from abortion to school vouchers to fighting the Clinton administration to getting Dubya into office to supporting Dubya’s various dubious activities, he was nominated and ultimately confirmed as a judge on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Since then, he’s been a regular speaker before various conferences hosted by the Federalist Society, continuing to polish his bona fides as a True Believer.

        My WAG, with no explicit evidence to back it up (save for the political stench), is that when Trump was flailing around for a VP, Trump made a deal with Mike Pence. Pence agreed to be VP and thus help Trump get the evangelical community excited about this thrice-married, pussy-grabbing, money-grubbing narcissist, and his price was that Pence and the True Believers of the Right would have free rein when it came to nominating judges and justices. Kavanaugh is the right wing’s boy — Trump just signed on the bottom line, to make the nomination official.

        • JD12 says:

          Aren’t those liabilities for a SCOTUS justice though?

          It seems that in the past—especially with the filibuster—you had to avoid partisan political activities if you ever wanted a nomination. It was a decision you had to make early in your career.

          I’m not saying Kavanaugh wasn’t groomed by the FedSoc, or anything like that, but they were probably content to have him where he was. Kavanaugh was left off Trump’s original list and McConnell advised against picking him mostly for that reason. He wasn’t a finalist for Scalia’s seat—his name didn’t come up until November 2017, after the special counsel investigation started.

          Looking at it now, the Times report in July that said McConnell was advising against Kavanaugh is a clear sign McConnell knew something was wrong. He must not have forced the issue because he arrogantly thought the GOP majority and Kavanaugh’s experience in the confirmation process would get them through, but instead Trump gave the Democrats a chance to set a trap an experienced politician would’ve avoided.

          • Noni Mausa says:

            “Aren’t those liabilities for a SCOTUS justice though?”

            Only if you insist on the “justice” part, I’m thinking.

            Since technically the judiciary is an independent branch of government, if the legislature wants an absolutely reliable operative,  it’s imperative they have someone who has already demonstrated his allegiance to their core goals, even in the face of contradictory case law or precedent.  They can’t risk installing someone who might wake up one day and decide to take his independence seriously.

            This would narrow the field quite a lot, even among an already handpicked bunch of conservatives.  But Kavanaugh has demonstrated he’s ready to go above and beyond.

  2. reader says:

    look I don’t want this nutcase judge any more than you do, but the logic here is pretty silly. Because he has 35+ year old evidence and can’t find more recent evidence on something doesn’t mean “Which is pretty compelling evidence that such evidence does or once did exist.”

    no its not. I can easily (and “heroically”) document my address of 35+ years ago. I can not as easily prove whether I used an odd or even number of squares of toilet paper I used just this morning.

    One has nothing to do with the other and my ability to document Mr old address doesn’t imply the existence of evidence to prove an odd number of squares. This blog post was disappointing based on the title. I thought you had something damning…

    • bmaz says:

      This is garbage. Kavanaugh’s record, going back to unitary executive power and torture, not to mention anti-women positions, goes back decades. You have not documented, nor rebutted, squat.

      What a load of irreverent and impertinent shit.

      Thanks there for your, apparent, first comment here at EW.

      Are you real, or just another troll that has been relentlessly attacking us recently?

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        I vote for automated bot, because of the typos and its conflating the script from an old Charmin commercial with A.A. Milne’s, “Lines and Squares”.

        And I keep in the squares,
        And the masses of bears,
        Who wait at the corners all ready to eat
        The sillies who tread on the lines of the street
        Go back to their lairs,

    • Rayne says:

      LOL If Kavanaugh didn’t remember receiving the emails he was asked about, why is he prevaricating? Why can’t he simply say, “I don’t recall seeing these emails and I don’t have any record of these emails”?

      Because there are folks out there who have some of the “Easy Rider Gag List.

      It’s funny he can’t respond directly to Hirono’s question about the email list but he can produce +30-year-old calendar. As if teenagers ever noted in writing on paper calendars, PARTY ‘TIL BLACK-OUT DRUNK AT SO-AND-SO’S HOUSE, BRING WINGMAN AND BEER.

    • Anon says:

      Your logic is unsound.

      If your critique is that his having a high school diary is not inherent proof of concealment elsewhere you are right. But even so it still raises questions one way or the other.

      Consider what he is trying to get us to believe: 1) that he has kept a detailed diary of all events at least during high school; 2) that he is so rigorous about it that it accurately records parties he attended OR that it shows him fully booked during all possible times when such parties could take place; and 3) that he either stopped keeping such detailed records later in life when he was an actual judge or that his infallible record does nothing to help him recall if his mentor kept sending him porn despite the fact that email is generally searchable.

      However you slice it that creates seeming conflicts. And when it is pared with his prior example of omitting the truth or carefully parsing his answers to avoid giving it (i.e. questions about his involvement with warrantless wiretapping and stolen documents) it makes it all the more likely that his own careful non-denial is in fact a cover.

    • DJ says:

      I think what is suspect here is how easily Bretty can produce old records. Sure, perhaps his mom kept a trunk of random old high school whatevers that are now sitting in Brett’s attic.

      But, Brett seems have found some esoteric paper records quickly. Surely, surely, surely he can do a simple email search, then.

      Maybe he just rolled his eyes and hit delete for all those emails without reading them and then never thought twice of them. Just say so, then!

      This guy appears to have real issues with the truth… and personal space. One reason his teenage behavior is relevant is because his adult rulings indicate similar trends. He seems to have no problem with forceful, dominant behavior to select others. Does he think warrants are necessary… does he think the police can just walk in to your home… does he think ALL are entitled due process, etc, etc. And if he has issues with the truth, would his answers to those questions mean anything?

  3. Drew says:

    Someone (a very reliable someone) mentioned on a twitter thread that Kavanaugh had made an apology to someone for some inappropriate behavior of his while drunk. (I haven’t seen this but if it came to it, I could get it from this tweeter who is not a purveyor of overheard junk). Kavanaug apologized and explained that he had no memory of the event at all (though in this case he didn’t question its occurrence). The significant thing about this is that describes “Blackout drinking”-this does not mean passing out, but reaching a level of intoxication which (if one is prone to this) makes it impossible to take in any memories while otherwise functioning normally (though intoxicated). The high degree of intoxication, and perhaps certain additional characteristics of this memory dysfunction, often involve loss of the person’s ordinary inhibitions and undertaking high risk behavior.

    So we have Mark Judge, who has written about his own repeated blackout drunks, and Kavanaugh who uses the description of a blackout drunk to deflect engagement about an incident as he apologizes for it, showing up at a party, obviously drunk. And they sincerely have no memory of it. The research is that in a blackout, the person is physiologically unable to form memories, so later reminders will not bring back any hint of memory of the incident.

    I kind of hope Kamala Harris is well prepped to pursue that line of questioning with Kavanaugh.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      It’s not an apology unless Kavanaugh expresses regret and makes amends – and vows not to repeat the same behavior.

      Given how touchy Brett was to the questioning, I would guess that the drinking went on for decades.  So he seems to have gotten the expresses regret part down, but not the making amends and not stopping the bad behavior.

      • Drew says:

        Touche

        Though apology or no, we’re talking about blackouts as a characteristic of Brett’s drinking behavior. Passing out is one thing–you’re on the floor; blacking out is another–you go around doing even crazier things than you could imagine with no possibility of actually remembering the behavior. Once it’s established you were doing something, you have no defense that anyone misunderstood, because you have no memory of context or intention. There’s no, ‘it was an accident’

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        Your points were good.  I’m just frustrated at how the commercial apology industry has made a mockery of a necessary social act, preserving the form while gutting it of meaning.  These things tend to metastasize.

  4. Trip says:

    FFS, this seriously strains credulity.

    But this was funny, under your link:
    Reader Adrift‏ @ReaderAdrift
    Replying to @peterbakernyt

    Is there an entry for “vomited in somebody’s car?”

    If there are no entries for getting drunk with Judge, then we can assume that his calendar is not comprehensive. Does he have a calendar for the “Tits and Clit” club activities?

    If he was this organized, an a hoarder of sorts (who would save 80s calendars?), where are all of the detailed notes from when he began his career? Are there special mentions of pushing torture?
    How about a debt and payback calendar? Does he have a 2001 calendar that mentions being aggressive after losing the dice game?

  5. Ann deLorge says:

    Because of the unrealistic determination of Graham and Grassley to get Kav… on the court, I would like to know if there is blackmail or ? behind all of this. Surely it is not just trump’s desire or that of the base that is driving the Repubs. It seems that everything so far, re trump, is completely corrupt so what’s going on behind the scene here?

  6. John B. says:

    T rump needs a hitman on scotus to keep his presidency alive when the inevitable constitutional crisis hits the supremes and frat boy Brett hits all the pleasure centers of the right wing minority and so they will do everything they can to get his nomination through…t rump needs him and because frat boy Brett is compromised he is reliable.

    • Rayne says:

      Let’s be judicious about using the h—-n word. We don’t advocate violence here. Should be absolutely clear you mean by metaphor a justice who is as compromised as the president and thereby highly motivated to cover the president’s backside.

      • John B. says:

        I shouldn’t have to explain what I mean Rayne especially in this shebeen of all places. We know who he is. He is a republican rat f*cker and partisan warrior from way back and groomed to be so from early on. He has a role and they intend for him to play it.

  7. earlofhuntingdon says:

    I suspect that Mr. Kavanaugh learned many things from his years long investigation of Bill and Hillary. Parsing obvious words in absurd ways is likely to be one of them, which would suggest that his use of language not be taken at face value.

    Plus, there’s the considerable possibility that Kavanaugh is lying his pants off when necessary to get that brass ring, the one he feels he’s be groomed for since he left Yale.

    Lastly, there’s Kavanaugh’s one-way sense of privacy, the kind he would deny to anyone else, that the Dems should take a switch to.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      My point was about absurd interpretations, not valid ones, about deceit, and about abusing the language and the processes using it.

      PhDs in comparative lit. are also reasonably good at parsing language, but it’s not the particular training that counts so much as the purposes to which one puts the skill.  Mr. Kavanaugh puts his to the same ends he puts everything, in service to himself and to his arch-conservative and neoliberal patrons.

    • Rayne says:

      And Avenatti says his client isn’t Deborah Ramirez, named in that New Yorker piece.

      By the way, make sure Jane Mayer gets equal credit with Ronan Farrow, folks.

    • Bob Conyers says:

      In that article Farrow and Jane Mayer report Judiciary Committee Republicans knew about it and tried to speed up his consideration. They’re monsters.

      For what it’s worth, Avenatti says he is representing a woman – not the woman in the New Yorker article – with “credible information” about Kavanaugh, although no details yet.

    • Steven Smith says:

      This was inevitable. Quite clearly, this was not a momentary lapse on the path of true righteousness, which is why McConnell was worried about this nomination.

      What will all of the apologists who claim that Brett was only an example of “boys being boys” say now that there will be an avalanche of evidence of continuing such behavior. I think that the spoofy song I recall might explain:

      “Same song, second verse; couldn’t get better, but it might get worse…”

      So, their offering of the next verse will be the one that my dad used to explain the hi-jinks of Rotary (or insert your favorite) members at their conventions:  “Men will be boys!”

  8. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Kavanaugh’s name might be withdrawn. But the next nominee will be no Snow White. S/he will also be on the FedSoc’s approved list.

    The better fix is for people to get out and vote and put the Dems in charge of the Senate. Then people have to make them wanna do the right thing.

    • bmaz says:

      No, the next one, should Kavanaugh be gone, will likely be Amy Coney Barrett. She is completely unqualified historically, but she is 1) clean 2) well educated 3) conservative to all hell (as in more dogmatic than even Kavanaugh), 4) even younger than Kavanaugh and 5) a woman, which will be beyond critical for the GOP if Kavanaugh is eliminated.

      This is the trade off for challenging Kavanaugh. I am not sure it is wrong, to make that trade, because of the torture component as to Kavanaugh. I “think” it is, relatively, okay, but people should fully understand what the metrics really are in what is afoot here.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        I think you’re agreeing that whether Trump gets Kavanaugh or has to nominate a replacement, they will all be FedSoc bots who will last for a generation, free the president and corporations of limits on their power and profitability, and curtail rights for women, people of color, the non-heterosexual community, and anyone who needs government to do the right thing and fulfill its promises.

        The Goopers should be in a quandary.  They have about six weeks until the election.  Should the GOP lose the Senate, Republicans can’t be sure they will keep all their votes during the lame duck session.

        Do they wait and vote on Kavanaugh, hoping they don’t lose two votes and the nomination, or do they throw in the towel and replace him with someone like Amy Coney Barrett?

        • bmaz says:

          Yes, indeed, am agreeing with that. Completely. Ideologically, though, the alternative may be worse than Kavanaugh was more my point. And I still “may” be okay with that. I dunno. It is all a Hobson’s choice to keep in mind though. Ugh.

          • Anon says:

            I agree with you that the alternative may be worse. Indeed I suspect that they will augar for worse just to spite everyone. I don’t share your certainty that it will be Amy Coney Barett. While she is female and would seem to be a suitable about face for the party the fact that McConell is opposed and the fact that she lacks the long history will work against her. In any case however I don’t see that as a reason not to fight.

            First however you rank the others Kavanaugh is bad, bad on spying, on near-dictatorial presidential powers, on social policy, on evnironmental protection, and on a seeming insistence that companies get more privacy than individuals. He is objectively bad and that was before Dr. Ford’s accusations. For that reason alone he has to be fought.

            Second, there is a finite clock, and finite credibility. While other nominees may be worse they will face a higher bar precisely because they are following this shitshow and the weight of public opinion, even Republican Opinion, will be against a rapid confirmation of anyone. Prudence indeed would demand it.

            Third, keeping your powder dry just means losing. The Democrats, particularly Schumer, have spent years arguing for keeping their powder dry, and years losing perhaps slightly more slowly, but losing nonetheless. When push comes to shove you have to push for what you believe or people forget that you believe anything at all.

            • earlofhuntingdon says:

              Schumer talks the game, but seems to keep his powder locked up so far from the front lines that it will never be used.

          • Worried says:

            Yes, it is disheartening that a “win” could actually be a loss.

            Trump out equals Pence in.

            Kavanaugh out may result in a younger, more effective, justice with views that interpret current laws from the perspective of the late 1700s.

            Always hope for the best,…….but have to plan for the worst.

            • Tracy says:

              But if he’s committed these crimes – which I believe the women, but we may not be able to know for certain before his confirmation, though we may have 2+ credible allegations, then it’s untenable that he stay in the race. It would be such an insult and injury to women (and men, of course, too) around the country who have experienced sexual attack, misconduct, or harassment in any form, which I’d wager is nearly all women at some point in their lives, and now that more men are coming forward and we are seeing the extent of the problem with the clergy in PA and other places, we are seeing that there are quite a few men, too.

              Plus, there are SO MANY things against him, and he’s just unethical. We have credible reason to believe that he’s lied under oath many, many times, between his last hearing and this one.

              We will get stuck with another horrific candidate, but he just has to go, period – and you just never know what happens with the next one. Let’s get rid of the devil that we know before dealing with the one we don’t yet.

      • Drew says:

        I do wonder, however, whether Trump will bridle at appointing a woman after having been beaten on his own sexual misconduct turf. His ego is easy to bruise and he might decide he needs someone even more macho to make his point. (Still Federalist Society, etc. Maybe Steven Miller? ;-))

      • koolmoe says:

        Though my summative reading of Barrett is she is staunchly ‘pro-life’ and thus likely not acceptable to Collins or Mukowski…so even if BK is abandoned and Barrett is rushed through as secondary, with the midterms coming even closer, I don’t know if that would be the best Repub solution…

  9. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Lindsey Graham, prognosticator of prognosticators, said earlier today that regardless of what Ford says in Senate testimony, he will still vote for Kavanaugh – unless there’s more.

    Are we in agreement that Lindsey already knew there would be more, given that Senate Dems and Republicans already knew the Mayer-Farrow article was in the works?

    And what, pray tell, is the president’s private lawyer doing pontificating about foreign policy and talking about overthrowing Iran. Not that any of his other clients, such as those Iranian dissidents, ever had an interest in doing that. (I guess if the Don isn’t paying him, Rudy has to pay his bills some other way.)

    • orionATL says:

      nothing sums senator grahams entire career better than this:

      “… Lindsey Graham… said .. that regardless of what Ford says in Senate testimony, he will still vote for Kavanaugh – unless there’s more…” :))

      please excuse the cavalier edits.

      • Tracy says:

        Heard a theory that Graham is angling for the AG job – thus, his obsequiousness to DJT, his calls for independent investigation into deep state. He’s as bad as any of them and worse right now!

  10. orionATL says:

    it was inevitable, given super-k’s allboys-frat boy background. there are more out there, i guarantee – boys-will-be-boys high school indescretions, then sexually exploitative dke fraternaty membership at yale, then when super-k isxa judge, a female yale professor is said to have coached young women how to “be” when applying for a kavanaugh ckerkship:

    http://www.bradford-delong.com/2018/09/yale-students-to-prof-who-denies-coaching-kavanaugh-clerks-youre-lying-huffpost.html

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/new-yorker-deborah-ramirez-brett-kavanaugh_us_5ba81e37e4b0375f8f9e41f5

    rotten to the core. that’s why senator snake grassley is so frantic to finish this matter off, pronto.

    • orionATL says:

      by the way, yale prof amy chua and her husband jed rosenfeld have an article in the new edition of the atlantic. it’s about the constitution because, don’t you know, they are constitutional law scholars (i think).

      i read the article twice. i thought it was dumb (or else i was for missing the point).

      after breathing heavily about this or that problem in our society which they linked to our constitution, they neglected to give serious weight to the responsibilty of supreme court justices for these problems.

      now how could two such scholars fail to point out to teaders that the constitution is nothing more than the interpretation of supreme court justices over time?

      edwin cherminsky’s work does not suffer that defect. he holds the supreme court justices liable, over and again, for failing to allow the constitution to express the fundamentally liberal (in the non-political sense) views of the american people.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        Erwin Chemerinsky at Berkeley?  Top notch legal scholar.  If he weren’t already 65, he’d be a great pick for the Supremes.  Attorney General, perhaps, or Dawn Johnsen, or either at any federal enforcement agency.  And Bill Black at the SEC.

        Interestingly, Dawn Johnsen was also a double Yaley, moving to the law school the year Kavanaugh entered as a freshman.  She might know some of the same people, certainly the same faculty members.

        • orionATL says:

          good suggestions all.

          i was referencing cherminsky’s recent about face on the supreme court in which he considers its flaws as currently constituted and the serious damage the court has done to the nation. a nice summary was in an aclu podcast but i can’t find it listed directly under aclu’s name on the internet:

          https://sheville.org/aclu-brett-kavanaugh-and-the-case-against-the-supreme-court-podcast-and-transcript/

          “the case against the supreme court” reviewed:

          http://www.latimes.com/books/jacketcopy/la-ca-jc-erwin-chermerinsky-20140921-story.html

          “…It’s time to get past the façade of the marble columns and the mystique of justices who appear in robes from beyond heavy curtains,” he writes. The justices do not “find” the law hidden deep in the text, he says. Rather, they decide the law and do so based on their own values and understandings. “If we see the Court in this way, we can begin to hold it accountable for its own decisions,” he concludes…”

          • orionATL says:

            cherminsky here is a man after my own heart.

            i say screw the sainted antonin scalia and his entirely self-serving and intellectually dishonest “originalism”.

            what does “originalism” imply? why nothing more than the arrogant position that that particular justice gets to decide on his own what the law means based on his personal understanding of language. never was this more evident than in scalia’s etymologically foolish, politically opportune, determination of the meaning in the 1780’s of phrase “the right to bear arms”
            .

  11. Wm. Boyce says:

    I’m sure others have found it as weird as I have that this creep suddenly comes up w/his “calendar” whilst in high school! I’m older than he is, and in that era I kept track of my jobs on a calendar (wall variety) but I didn’t keep them for posterity.

    This guy is bad news in ways that we are only finding out now. His political positions on the DC circuit are despicable, and yet that doesn’t disqualify him!

    • Anon says:

      I’m afraid that his political jobs and their sleaze is precisely what qualifies him. At least in the eyes of those doing the voting.

  12. Tracy says:

    Wow, guys, there is some really heavy – disturbing – horrifying – stuff on Michael Avenatti’s twitter feed, laid out in an email to the illustrious Mike Davis. I am speechless about it.

    • Tracy says:

      Also because of Hirono’s stock-question for every nominee re: committing sexual misconduct as an adult – Kavanaugh said “no” under oath.

  13. Tracy says:

    I’ve always found it odd the inexplicable emphasis on Kavanaugh’s alleged “support for women,” right from the night of his nomination. Then there was his touchiness in being asked about his own sexual proclivities, while meanwhile he’d advocated for asking Clinton the most invasive sexual questions.

    Then the drinking-misogyny culture of the prep schools in the area at the time, and the writing of Mark Judge, who I don’t think had such a respectful view of women.

    All of these puzzle pieces fit a picture that’s emerging. We were in the dark without having other allegations come forward as to a pattern of behavior, but more light is being shed, despite Repuglican efforts to block the truth from coming out.

    With even more serious allegations on the horizon, here is a good piece by Jennifer Rubin on “Why You Call the FBI:”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2018/09/24/here-is-why-you-call-the-fbi/

    • JD12 says:

      He oversold it didn’t he?

      At first I thought it was just because of his position on Roe v Wade. But Kavanaugh’s answers to the questions about Kozinski’s emails and office behavior seemed strange. I figured it could have something to do with his own behavior.

      He’s a skilled liar but he can be overconfident and has a few tells. This thing with the calendar from the 80s is weird too. I wouldn’t expect anybody to believe it would exonerate me. He’d be better off keeping it to himself.

      • Tracy says:

        Yes, I also thought it was the Roe thing, but now there is just this weird larger picture emerging – and it’s just untenable that he didn’t know about Kozinski. And he’s totally lied about that, too.

  14. joejoejoe says:

    I have a hard time seeing how Kavanaugh doesn’t get his nomination pulled by the White House by Tuesday. You can’t paper over this stuff anymore with a kangaroo Senate hearing anymore. Pushing forward with Kavanaugh is opening up the conversation about nullifying ALL Trump actions.

  15. Gnome de Plume says:

    At the pace the Kavanaugh news is moving, I don’t think he will make it until Thursday. OTOH, the longer they hang onto him, the less time there will be to jam the next nominee through. A crazy thought occurred to me as the NYer and Avenatti news broke – I wonder what Ted Cruz is thinking about all of this. Does he see that this whole Kavanaugh debacle is going to cost him his re-election? Would he try to grandstand to stop this from going through, so that he can be the savior of his people? Or is he fine with all of this because he comes from the same ranks?

  16. Gamboler says:

    I’ve taken to calling him Snowball, not because of any abnormal sexual proclivities (that we know of) but because he don’t have a chance in hell after today.

  17. I Never Lie and am Always Right says:

    Given the latest allegations, I wonder if he might follow in Kozinski’s footsteps and retire. Getting nominated for a gig on the Supreme Court has turned out to be his worst nightmare.

    I am also wondering what former Justice Kennedy is thinking right now. I’ve always thought that there was more than meets the eye regarding his supposed “understanding” that his seat would be filled by someone acceptable to him as the result of him resigning at the end of the last term.

  18. Hurltim says:

    RE: 80’s Calendars. I’m just spitballing here but hanging on to things from the “Good ‘Ol Days” strikes me as a sort of pathology. The type of pathology that uses articles to relive experiences etc. My gut tells me these calendars might contain more information than K may realize. Mark Judge’s books essentially brag about horrendous behavior and both Judge and K display a certain arrogance found with certain disorders.
    In short, this is shaping up to be an episode of Law and Order: Special Victims Unit.
    Lots of creepy behavior to go around.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Interestingly, Kavanaugh himself offered up those supposed decades old diaries, which makes them fair game for the Senate.  And all his others.  Unedited.

      As you imply, Kavanaugh is beginning to act as if he wants to be caught, which suggests guilty knowledge about something worth catching him over.  When Brett is drinking, I wonder whether he prefers a Tom Collins or a Stephen Collins.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        To be clear, I am not equating Kavanaugh’s and Collins’s behavior, except insofar as each might have wanted to out themselves.  In Stephen Collins’s case, it seemed to be a function of guilt and self-flagellation.  In Kavanaugh’s case, it appears to be more a desire to have a, “You’re goddamned right I did,” moment.  Self-destruction seems the most likely outcome.

  19. Eureka says:

    We had a huge scandal in PA with a state Supreme Court judge and horrible emails (dubbed “Porngate,” but plenty of racism and other nastiness).

    In PA, they got the details from state servers on who sent and received what. I’m not informed about the Kozinski case- was there nothing on servers to capture this info? Uncooperative investigative authorities?

    If interested:
    It was a protracted mess throughout the court system and complicated by a corrupt AG- this WaPo article summarizes many of the main issues, by a former Philadelphia Inquirer writer (so ~ local journalism-informed).
    Pornographic email scandal roils Pennsylvania politics – The Washington Post
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pornographic-email-scandal-ripples-through-pennsylvania-politics/2015/12/26/fc411a76-a374-11e5-b53d-972e2751f433_story.html

  20. Trip says:

    What’s amazing in all of this is what he is putting his daughters and the girls’ team he coaches through, for his own gain.

    The girls, the team, the school, all now wrapped in a blanket of rapey stigma. Even though Kavanaugh has denied all of it, the GOP, by swatting it away through ‘boys will be boys’ and ‘it ain’t no big deal’ excuses, are telling the Kavanaugh girls that this predatory behavior is normal, that they can expect rape attempts, rape and sexual harassment, that it’s part of growing up, and they should anticipate being maligned and attacked, should they ever speak of it or complain.

    How the hell can a loving father allow that message to be drilled into his own children’s heads and be okay with it?

    This is what MAGA represents. Instilling gender-based second class citizenry mindset in the youth, returning to the days when assault was okay.

    • Bob Conyers says:

      I’m not impressed by the final softball question thrown in the interview. I would expect CJR to do something harder hitting.

      Thielman: What if there’s nothing on those iPods except the Nickelback discography?

      Wheeler: Then he should get the chair.

    • errant aesthete says:

      I am always at a loss to adequately explain to friends, acquaintances, and those of shared sensibilities the extraordinariness of Marcy Wheeler and all she does. Blogger? Journalist? Analyst? Fact Checker? Truth Teller? Prognosticator?

      All those labels only tap at the edges, barely revealing the essence of who and what she is. Which makes her all the more unique, individualist and rare, a cherished find and, God knows, a comforting and valued presence in this unfamiliar and terrifying place we insist on calling a world.

      Thank you for providing me this needed eloquence.

      • errant aesthete says:

        Sorry – out of sequence. Referencing CJR article EmptyWheel’s Marcy Wheeler Tells More Than She Tells, but She Tells a Lot.

  21. Tracy says:

    Here’s an article summarizing what’s public knowledge about Avenatti’s info on Kavanaugh and Judge, and an article w/ quotes from Avenatti to Politico:

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/09/avenatti-implicates-kavanaugh-in-pattern-of-sexual-assault.html

    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/23/second-woman-assault-kavanaugh-837678

    “Avenatti told POLITICO he represents a group of individuals who can corroborate allegations involving Kavanaugh and his longtime friend in the 1980s.

    “Avenatti said he’d describe just one of the individuals as a victim.

    “‘She will testify,’ he said. ‘But before she does, she will likely appear on camera for an interview.’

    “He said the others were witnesses to the allegations. Avenatti would not elaborate on the number of clients but said he represents them alone.”

    To understand the dynamics for women around these things, I’d also recommend reading this reporting about a young woman in Arlington, TX, who was gang raped, then attacked and ostracized by her community for coming forward:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/opinions/arlington-texas/

    Also illustrating the dynamics, a head of school FROM Arlington, Butch Groves, wrote to Avenatti about the coming info: “‘You are a f***ing douche bag. You lying piece of sh**.'”

    I’m glad to see that there are witnesses, considering the uphill battle that women face in being believed – even when there is corroborating evidence.

  22. Jenny says:

    EXPOSURE! So many red flags regarding Kavanaugh which are now being exposed. Plus the WH occupant who nominated him, is the poster boy for sexual assault against women – remember he admitted & bragged in doing so.

    The patriarchal abuse system has been rooted for eons. Now an earthquake, allowing for all of these sexual abuses, harassment, assaults seared into the consciousness for too long is being exposed.

    This is about women being assaulted, sexually assaulted & harassed plus ALL women who have experienced the same around the world in the past & present. It is about reliving unpleasant & uncomfortable emotions & experiences that have been buried for years triggered by current events, reported by the media regarding malicious, abhorrent actions by men towards women.

    This is Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Old trauma lodged in the body finally surfacing to be exposed. Exposure of a male culture abusing & repressing women.

    It is a rising up of the collective saying “no.” No to deviant behavior which is unacceptable because women are tired of hiding wounds, injuries & the injustice.

    With this exposure women are remembering assaults which are surfacing in order to express & heal. Women are stepping forward to speak up & speak out. In doing so, we as a society can create change. Change behavior for ourselves, our children & for a healthier society. Change beings with the self.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      It’s unlikely that Rosenstein will resign.  It’s personal and principle now.  But it depends on what carrots and sticks the Trumpistas can cobble together to force the issue. In any case, he and Mueller will have long since planned for this eventuality.

      I find it hard to believe that any combination of carrots and sticks would be sufficient to force Rosenstein to resign, especially given that the Don is cravenly trying to orchestrate this from out of town.

      Unsurprisingly, the MSM continues to spin this as if it is a consequence of the Schmidt-Apuzzo article and the facts underlying it, when it is most likely the reverse.  It is including the Mueller investigation in the conversation, but not mentioning whether this firing would amount to another act of obstruction.

      • Tracy says:

        Just seen that it makes a difference, fired v. resigned, b/c in the latter case DJT can appoint an acting AG – if fired it’s uncertain.

        Jonathan Swan’s tweet: be prepared for spin on fired v. resigned – he hasn’t been fired, according to Swan.

        • harpie says:

          Here’s Steve Vladeck on fired/resigned.

          The Vacancies Reform Act gives @realDonaldTrump the power to appoint an Acting _Deputy_ AG if Rosenstein resigns (and maybe if he’s fired). That person does not automatically become Acting Attorney General for Russia. That’s still SG Francisco… / The resigned/fired distinction matters with respect to naming Rosenstein’s acting successor, and that’s a big deal on other issues—just not Russia, because Rosenstein was supervising Mueller as Acting AG, not as Deputy AG.

      • Trip says:

        Exclusive: Rod Rosenstein is resigning

        Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has verbally resigned to Chief of Staff John Kelly in anticipation of being fired by President Trump, according to a source with direct knowledge. Per a second source with direct knowledge: “He’s expecting to be fired,” so he plans to step down. 
        https://www.axios.com/rod-rosenstein-resign-justice-department-trump-cf761f4c-fca3-4794-92d4-a56c9e32ff43.html

        I don’t know, @earl.
        It’s funny, because right before I came back and read Trent’s comment, I was wondering what kind of diversionary fuckery Mike and Maggie would come up with in the wake of increasing allegations against Kavanaugh.

        This makes me wonder if Rosenstein is actually taking a hit for the (GOP) team. During the Kavanaugh hearings, and after Kavanaugh rejected with contempt the extension for a handshake by father of Parkland victim, Fred Guttenberg, Kavanaugh walks away. As he exits, Rosenstein pats him heartily on the back with a smile.

        • Trip says:

          Nevermind, I trust Pete Williams more than Axios:

          Jeremy Pelofsky
          ‏ @wdcscribe
          NBC’s Pete Williams, gold standard in #DOJ reporting, says #Rosenstein en route to White House, won’t resign and will force them to fire him. As I am told, Vacancies Act only kicks in if he resigns.
          7:51 AM – 24 Sep 2018

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          The Trumpistas would have to invent reasons sufficient for Rosenstein to resign.  He and Mueller will have put together a strategy to deal with this obvious possibility.

          They will have sorted out the consequences of resigning vs. being fired for a variety of purposes, from matters personal to Rosenstein, such as his retirement benefits, to the nationally important issues of succession to his office and control over the Mueller investigation.

          • Trent says:

            Good call above EoH, recognizing this story will change 100 more times before it’s over.

            But Monday Morning Massacre has a nice ring to it.

             

            • earlofhuntingdon says:

              The reason I’m confident that Rosenstein and Mueller have put such effort into planning for a forced succession – for both of them – is because Mueller’s removal will be next on the agenda.

              The Don considers obstruction his to do as of right, in the same way that Vladimir Putin arrests his political opponents.

              It will be up to the USG to decide whether it wants its chief executive to have such above-the-law power, and up to the voters to affirm or disavow it.

              John Roberts would probably not support such a power grab.  Brett Kavanaugh has shown that as a zealot, he knows no limits that should bind his patrons, corporate, religious, or political.

              • Bob Conyers says:

                I agree with Trip, that was a good read on the situation.

                Now Axios can join the NY Times in the list of outlets that are happy to be played.

      • posaune says:

        Just cancelled our times subscription.   They actually asked why, so I let loose.  Told her their real estate coverage always sucked, and if it hadn’t ignored the don all these years, he wouldn’t be where he is now.

        p.s.   the times money is going to marcy now.

  23. earlofhuntingdon says:

    The MSM seems to think that the arch-conservatives in the WH have persuaded the Don that he can fire Rosenstein before the election.  Give the dog a bone so that he doesn’t trash the living room.

    Of course, the Don will be out of town, so he won’t do it face-to-face.  He might not even do it.  He prefers to force people to resign – unlike the decisive, “You’re fired!” caricature he plays on reality TV – so that he can avoid being liable for his own decisions.  Rosenstein is unlikely to give Mr. Trump that satisfaction.

    Who are among his likely replacements?

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      The Don does like to make firings as painful and publicly humiliating as possible, so long as he can do it at one or more remove.

      But the Rosenstein issue is about who succeeds him at the DoJ and how, and who succeeds him as overseeing the Mueller investigation and how. Two different questions.  That’s where the Don’s WH handlers come in.

      If left to his own devices, the Don would fire Rosenstein, but only from behind the curtain, so that he can pull his knob with abandon without anyone looking.

      • RWood says:

        Reporting now that he has left the WH and will “stay in his job”. I read that as he refused to resign.

        Scheduled to meet with Drump later this week. What will Cheeto do?

  24. SirLurksAlot says:

    Great interview in the CJR – good to see you getting credit for all the super-sleuthing that you do. and rickrolling Nickelback: priceless.

  25. Tracy says:

    Is the Rosenstein news, at this time, a distraction from the v serious Kavanaugh issues?

    Natasha Bertrand on Twitter: Rosenstein discussed resigning w/ Kelly on Saturday, but did NOT resign – now he’s been summoned to the WH, expects to be fired.

    (It’s ironic, but I hope he records it so we know what happened, in case WH tries to spin it as a resignation when it’s a firing.)

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        I agree.  The Schmidt-Apuzzo story is so intentionally and badly done that it makes them and the NYT complicit in the obvious consequences that flow from it.

        • Tracy says:

          Hey, guys! I am just a little confused. Which NYT story: where Rosenstein talked about recording/ 25th A? Earl, that was written by Adam Goldman and Mike %$&#*&@% Schmidt (but perhaps you mean a different one?).

          Regarding today’s Rosenstein resignation story, NYT has their own version of this story, but my impression was it was started by Axios.

          Trip, do you mean that the dynamic duo of Goldman and Schmidt sat on the 25th A story – that they timed it to drop when they did – and that furthermore this helps the WH by being in the middle of the Kavanaugh debacle?

          My opinion is that today’s KERFUFFLE about whether Rosenstein is fired/ resigned/ going anywhere or nowhere, is all just a WH-aided and abetted distraction from immanent DEVASTATING revelations and headlines about Kavanaugh!

          But both of your points are well taken – complicit, yes – cravenly self-positioning, yes – not caring about the future of our democracy for a headline and some clicks – DEFINITELY.

          Honestly, my heart cannot endure living like this. Our society should not have to endure life-altering BREAKING NEWS every few hours.

          Is it too much to ask that the MSM check, check and double-check their sources before giving everyone heart attacks?

  26. viget says:

    Right about now would be a good time for another GJ indictment to drop….  too bad GJ doesn’t meet until Friday :(

        • Bob Conyers says:

          It’s now being reported in the aftermath of the botched resignation story that Trump and Rosenstein are meeting Thursday.

          Considering that’s the day the Kavanaugh hearing is scheduled, and Trump hates dealing with two things at once, it’s curious timing. Trump could just as easily fire Rosenstein on Friday.

          Considering Rosenstein briefed Trump before the Helsinki meeting to alert him to the impending indictment of the Russian agents, I wonder if Rosenstein is going to the Thursday meeting to give Trump a similar notice of impending action on Friday. And I wonder how big that development might be.

          • Trip says:

            Aside from potential big developments to share with Trump, a. McConnell probably doesn’t want him tweeting attacks at Dr. Ford in real time, and b. maybe he knows the hearing will be a disaster so he’ll fire Rosenstein that day, so that the 2 pieces of chaos and fuckery cancel each other out, or push Rosenstein forward?

            • timbo says:

              McConnell doesn’t seem to care one way or the other. Basically, he appears to be the President’s man on this nomination. And that’s not really surprising as he, McConnell was the the front man for not allowing a Supreme Court nomination to go forward for almost a year in 2016. McConnell will basically do what he thinks is good for McConnell, nothing else. If he likes Kavanaugh (for whatever reason) he’ll stick with it like a swamp turtle that’s snapped onto something.  In this case, let’s hope he goes down with a loss on this nomination.  Couldn’t happen to a nicer tur…guy.

  27. Frank Probst says:

    I don’t understand his logic in bringing in his calendars.  Blasey Ford wasn’t 100% sure what YEAR this happened in, and she had no idea of the actual date.  The only thing that the calendars can show is that perhaps he was doing something else on the date of the party.  This is the second time (The first being Orrin Hatch’s statement last week.) that it’s been implied that Kavanaugh knows the exact date of the party.  How?

    • Bob Conyers says:

      My guess is the calendar story is like Ed Whelan’s Zillow story. They’re looking for anything that can stand up for a day or so, maybe just eight hours, so they can limp over the finish line.

      They’re scaping the bottom of the barrel, and it’s possible the Zillow story actually hurt more than it helped.

    • JD12 says:

      It was similarly strange that his first statement denied doing it then “or any other time.” Maybe it was his legal reflexes, but why would he mention another time before anyone else had? A good investigator would begin looking for others immediately.

  28. Noname says:

    Some commenters upthread mentioned Chua and Rubenfeld.  I graduated from YLS within the last 15 years and heard plenty of rumors about Rubenfeld (as did others in my cohort).  I stress, of course, that these were rumors – I witnessed nothing first hand, as I wanted nothing to do with either Chua or Rubenfeld.  But for various reasons I believed then (and believe now) that these rumors contained more than a grain of truth.

    I wanted nothing to do with Chua or Rubenfeld because their “scholarship” is a fucking joke, as any serious legal academic can tell you.  Maybe when they each started out they weren’t terrible, but basically they’ve mastered the art of leveraging the YLS letterhead to publish risible crap (The Triple Package, anyone?) which then gets media buzz because, hey, it’s a book by Yale Law Professors, and they must have something deeply important to tell us, right?

    In short, C&R are basically high grade bullshit artists, which is why I put absolutely no stock in Chua’s or Rubenfeld’s denial of having coached Yale Law women for Kavanaugh clerkships.

  29. viget says:

    So, no firing?  Looks like Rosenstein laid his “I’ll resign, but only if these conditions are met…” cards on the table, and Kelly blinked.  “I’ll have to get back to you on that….”

  30. Trip says:

    Meanwhile, maybe a fourth accuser/victim, Sentinel via Rawstory:

    Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh faces more allegations
    This would potentially bring the number to four women accusing Kavanaugh of wrongdoing and comes after Deborah Ramirez, a former Yale college student, stepped forward this weekend to accuse Kavanaugh of exposing himself to her in college, and after attorney Michael Avenatti tweeted out a message saying he represents a woman with “credible information regarding Judge Kavanaugh and Mark Judge.”

    https://mont.thesentinel.com/2018/09/24/supreme-court-nominee-kavanaugh-faces-more-allegations/

    • Tracy says:

      Holy Toledo! I knew that the floodgates would open… !!!

      And I really wonder about these victims filing state criminal reports… as you said when it was just Blasey Ford, Trip, she had a lot on her plate – also, she was alone – but perhaps now that there are more credibly (so far) alleged victims coming out…

    • Frank Probst says:

      Here’s the non-denial denial from Montgomery County PD:

      http://www.mymcpnews.com/2018/09/24/statement-from-the-montgomery-county-police-department-regarding-victim-accusations-of-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh/

      So they don’t have a complainant yet.  But that’s not what The Sentinel said.  The Sentinel said that a WITNESS came forward.  I’m not sure what they would do with that.  Based on The Sentinel’s reporting, my guess is that they’re trying to discreetly contact the alleged victim to let her know what’s happening (i.e., this is who came to us, and this is what he or she said) and telling her that they aren’t going to do any further digging unless she wants to file a formal complaint.

  31. jf-fl says:

    “When it suits his interests, Kavanaugh has now shown, he has a heroic ability to find documentary evidence.
    But here, for a period that lasted into much more recent time, Kavanugh insolently ignored a second direct request about whether he had documentary evidence that he knew of Kozinski’s harassment.
    Which is pretty compelling evidence that such evidence does or once did exist.”

    First time I’ve seen you make your own ‘Not A = A’ error (which should really be called ‘not(not a) = a’ but harder to say). You bring this up a lot [correctly in my view] w/regard to steele dossier: https://www.emptywheel.net/2017/12/07/cognitive-rot-and-the-steele-dossier/

    Not a fan of BK but rationally having good recall in one area does not pre-suppose automatically good or better recall in any other area.

    As BK accusers make note, they themselves can recall different levels of facts about the same time period in their own memory.   Granted there’s a sardonic post you could write about matt schlapp’s empathy for BK being abused, but it’s same error regardless of policy question.

    It’s important to pick one’s arguments, if everything has equal validity based on particular policy aims, that’s pretty transparent and people will start discounting valid arguments, esp if they’re complex.  Or said in another way, BK has good qualities (intelligent/qualified) but also plenty of problems (truth telling, overly political and prejudicial treatment of legal matters) even if we completely throw out that his memory is not perfect in time.

    • Rayne says:

      Which is an interesting counter-argument on which to ponder save for the hundreds of thousands of pages of Bush era work documents on which Kavanaugh worked, the government maintained, and Kavanaugh seems manifestly indifferent to producing.

      Ditto for his personal finances: why is it so goddamned difficult to produce the receipts from a house purchase showing the cash flows? As a current, active judge he should already understand his finances could be called into question at any time even were he not nominated to the Supreme Court, were he to be audited by the IRS. Why can’t he produce those?

      But +30-year-old calendars on which he may have indicated his drunken high school partying? Sure. Those he can produce.

        • Rayne says:

          Yeah. If I had any inkling they were one and the same I’d have booted the second but details don’t match. This one has quite of bit of consistency like reluctance to capitalize first word of a new sentence/graf and reasonably good spelling over the two months they’ve been here. ~shrug~

  32. earlofhuntingdon says:

    As bmaz has said, Brett Kavanaugh is not being tried in criminal court.  He is being interviewed for a job.  The range of relevant topics that can be investigated and the standards of proof are different.

    The standard for rejecting a job applicant in America, as tens of millions of Americans know well, is low.  The bar for being named to the Supreme Court should be as high as any standard gets.

    The kind of certifications an applicant makes when applying for federal government employment are in standard form SF 171.  They read, in part, as follows (emph. added):

    A false statement on any part of your application may be grounds for not hiring you, or for firing you after you begin work. Also, you may be punished by fine or imprisonment (U.S. Code, title 18, section 1001)….

    I understand that any information I give may be investigated as allowed by law or Presidential order. I consent to the release of information about my ability and fitness for Federal employment by employers, schools, law enforcement agencies and other individuals and organizations, to investigators, personnel staffing specialists, and other authorized employees of the Federal Government.

    I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, all of my statements are true, correct, complete, and made in good faith.

    Mr. Kavanaugh has been a USG employee since 2001.  Any liability for misstatements and material errors and omissions, including incompleteness, would be over and above any liability Mr. Kavanaugh might incur owing to his congressional testimony.

  33. I Never Lie and Am Always Right says:

    They will get around to prosecuting Kavanaugh under 18 USC 1001 after they get around to prosecuting Justice Thomas for omitting his wife’s information from his financial disclosure forms some years ago.

    New York Times, Jan. 24, 2011:
    “Justice Thomas said that in his annual financial disclosure statements over the last six years, the employment of his wife, Virginia Thomas, was ‘inadvertently omitted due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions.’ ”

    I’ve had some clients write large checks for fraud penalties and even spend time in Club Fed because they “didn’t understand the filing instructions” for their tax returns and omitted income from their returns. Of course, it could be true, that he didn’t understand the filing instructions. In which case, what is he doing on the Supreme Court?

  34. Trip says:

    Louisa Garry purportedly wants to remove her signature of support for Kavanaugh.
    https://www.rawstory.com/2018/09/gop-humiliated-friend-pro-kavanaugh-tv-ads-asks-removed-letter-supporting-judge/

    I saw her featured in commercials multiple times on MSNBC. Did anyone ever find it compelling? They had a friend promoting that she liked her friend. It was devoid of anything substantial. I suppose they figured the fact that she was female, and the duration of the relationship, was supposed to be convincing? That if Kavanaugh was a predator, surely he would have attacked every single woman he ever met? Who was the supposed target/demographic of this ad?

    I never understood why a candidate for SCOTUS should be using propaganda for a spot on the court to begin with. It completely rubbed me the wrong way.

    Also, if Kavanaugh wanted a “fair process”, which he apparently repeated ad nauseam on Trump TV (so I’ve read), wouldn’t that include neutral FBI investigations to “clear his name”, rather than relying on Grassley, a partisan, or Fox News which isn’t under oath?

  35. Bobster33 says:

    When I heard Kavanaugh was a virgin in high school and in college, my first thought was about my college roommate.  He used to state that he was technically a virgin because he wore a condom during intercourse.  Because of the condom, he technically did not penetrate his girlfriend.  We all laughed.

    I also laughed when Bill Clinton said that depend on the definition of what Is Is.

    Kavanaugh is parsing his words.  He is an unqualified wretch.

Comments are closed.