Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Let’s Not Re-Investigate Justice Kavanaugh
As if there wasn’t enough turmoil in this country this summer, Democrats are calling for another investigation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh. On a personal level, I’m disgusted by the very thought that the Democrats are even considering such an action. Then I learned that Senator Sheldon Whitehouse was leading the pack of attack; his involvement speaks volumes to the corruption of the Democrat party.
Jonathan Turley wrote an excellent article on this debacle:
The furious allegations of a cover-up began this week with a letter from Assistant FBI Director Jill Tyson to Sens. Whitehouse and Chris Coons (D-Del.). The letter was a delayed response to an earlier inquiry on the investigation of tips given to the FBI during Kavanaugh’s heated confirmation process. To call the letter ‘delayed’ is an understatement by a measure of years. Whitehouse and others are correct in objecting to the fact that these senators asked two years earlier about these tips and any investigation. There is no excuse for failing to respond to members of Congress on such questions, particularly given their oversight responsibilities of the FBI and the Department of Justice (DOJ).
I understand that Whitehouse and Coons are very annoyed about Tyson’s lack of responsiveness. But one explanation is available if anyone had bothered to check it out. Turley explains that the investigation of Kavanaugh was completed on July 18, 2018. Then in September 2018, Senator Dianne Feinstein submitted information she had received weeks earlier about Kavanaugh’s involvement in a sexual assault. (Feinstein waited until a week after his confirmation hearing was completed.) But many people don’t realize that a procedure had been established years earlier for additional information that was submitted:
The DOJ conducts background investigations pursuant to a March 2010 memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the DOJ and the White House. Under the Obama MOU, the FBI promptly notifies the ‘requesting entity’ if it learns of new information before a candidate assumes a nominated position that would raise questions about the ‘candidate’s suitability or trustworthiness.’ Clearly, the FBI can investigate any substantial evidence of a crime. However, the background investigation itself is not a criminal investigation.
Please note that neither the original investigation nor the follow-up one was a criminal investigation. The FBI also made the mistake of opening a “tip line” and received 4,500 tips, an impossible number to investigate. None of the tips pointed to anything criminal occurring anyway. (Ford didn’t file a criminal complaint.) And since the FBI was directed to keep its investigation brief, they interviewed 10 people over six days. As we all know, Kavanaugh’s nomination was confirmed.
* * * *
To pursue an investigation at this point would be a malicious act and destructive to the country. First, Kavanaugh’s hearings, more like a hateful, partisan show trial, were painful enough for the country to view; no jurist should ever again have to go through that kind of interrogation again. Second, there is still no evidence, in spite of conspiracy groups and the media follow-on investigations, of criminality. Third, the Democrats would see an effort to remove Kavanaugh as a way to further damage his reputation, the reputation of the Federalist Society, of Trump, and of Republicans. Fourth, if they were able to remove Kavanaugh, they would see this victory as a prelude to expanding SCOTUS and to seating Leftist judges to further the agenda of the Left.
Meanwhile, everyone—Congress, the Supreme Court, the Department of Justice, and the FBI—would be under the spotlight so that our country could watch the show. And the world would view us with increased disdain.
Once again, I am disgusted by the venality and vengeful behavior of Democrats, as they try to destroy reputations and lives to fulfill their cause. They will not only be tarnishing the members of the Supreme Court, but trying to destroy the lives of Kavanaugh and his family. Even if you are unhappy with some of Justice Kavanaugh’s most recent rulings, that is no reason to give your blessing to this detestable action.
It is unconscionable.
Published in Politics
Amen.
I hope that Mr. Kavanaugh learns that voting Democrat on the court from time to time will not make the Democrats his friends. They will still hate him.
So he might as well follow the Constitution.
I wish Mr. Roberts would learn the same thing.
I agree on every point! I hope Kavanaugh hasn’t picked up Roberts’ bad habits!
I don’t want to distract too much from the excellent points in the O/P, but, since there was a link to the Turley column, I’m compelled to say I find this comment in the column indefensible:
You mean, @hoyacon, you wouldn’t defend Trump? If so, I completely agree. Trump at one of his nastiest moments.
Correct. I’d go on but I don’t want to deflect from the main theme of the post.
Amen.
It’s worth speculating on what the endgame is for Whitehouse et al.
I have some reservations about Kavanaugh as a Justice, but I doubt that he could be “driven” to resign. A possible motive is to delegitimize his vote in the sense that any decision in which his vote is decisive will be viewed by partisans as a “Kavanaugh decision,” and suspect as such.
Obviously, such a decision would stand but could more easily be put under a lens should the composition of SCOTUS–or even the number of Justices–change. And abortion is on the docket for next term.
John Yoo was very critical of Kavanaugh on this last vote about the eviction moratorium; it sounded like Kavanaugh had really messed up. If Kavanaugh sees the wisdom in Yoo’s points, let’s hope that he’s learning a few things–like trying to be nice to people who abuse their power is a waste of time. We can hope that abortion is not addressed by the court in their usual way–narrowly and fecklessly.
Now I’m curious! I assume that you think the post will become all about Trump? As long as it somehow involves Kavanaugh, I tentatively encourage you. Is that possible to do?
Speaking of cover-up, when are we going to get an investigation into Joe Biden raping Tara Reade? Will that happen before or after we get an investigation of the payoffs that Joe Biden gets from China via Hunter?
No blessings here…but I do give it nothing more than my complete and utter indifference. “Tarnish the members of the Supreme Court?” Give me a break. (All but two or three are a continuous insult to thinking people everywhere. If not for the other two branches of our government, they would rightly be mocked much more commonly for the joke they are.) Every “detestable action” like this is just driving us to rock bottom a little bit faster…maybe this one will clip a trillion or two off the final bill.
Your disdain for SCOTUS is understandable. But I don’t think their actions are as feckless as Congress or as corrupted as the Executive Administrative Branch. I’m just not willing to give up on them yet.
The testimony of Ms. Ford could not be, and was not affirmed by the friend that she said drove her home after her rape, or attempted rape. Her friend said that she never gave her a ride home. A tip line that generated 4,500 responses brings out every lunatic, and virtue signaling liar seeking their 15 minutes of fame.
Whitehouse and Coons were never smart to begin with, and as they have aged they still are as stupid as they were decades ago.
You know the truth of this from your time on the front lines. Thanks, @dougwatt. And I agree with your other remarks, too.
Exactly, that’s exactly what the left wants to do – and fund raise off it as the investigation moves forward.
Why is it indefensible? It is likely true.
@hoyacon responded to a similar question from me, @doctorrobert, simply meaning that he wouldn’t make excuses for Trump; the comment was just plain nasty. See comment#4.
They just want to get him on the defensive before he rules on the rent moratorium thingy.
I’m not entirely sure what’s at issue here, but I agree that the comment does not speak well of Trump. In fact, I’m not all that sure what he’s getting at.
I read it as an indictment of cancel culture and as a statement of disappointment that Kavanaugh voted against conservative interests in spite of the fact that conservative Republicans had helped him out of a jam.
The guy who wrote the article the quote is in (a paraphrase most likely) suffers from Trump Derangement Syndrome, so it is hard to know what’s true here.
Nevertheless, it would be nice if people, including presidents, would speak politely. But after the way Biden has treated people in just the first few months of his presidency, I’ll take tactless Trump any day. :-) :-)
He is a brand. He thinks like Martha Stewart thinks. It’s the weirdest thing. When she writes about the farm she owns, everything is “My trees,” “My flowers,” and so on. It’s so irritating. But I once read a business book how to build a brand as an individual or small company, and I have to say, that’s how it’s done. Repeat, repeat, repeat. It’s annoying as can be, but Trump and Martha Stewart have been successful in this game.
For Trump, it’s a habit. And in some ways, it’s also an indictment on the Republican Party, which has really failed to formally support his candidacy and presidency to the point that he believes he’s playing for a team and not himself. I think that’s part of it too.
It’s irritating, but I’ve learned to tune it out. Rush Limbaugh used to do this too. If anyone said anything about him, he’d spend thirty minutes in an I-I-I monologue in defense.
I think it’s part of being a modern celebrity.
Turley got the quote from a book by a guy who really despises Trump.
Just to be clear–you said the guy who wrote the article had DTS. We don’t know if Wolff, (who’s detestable) who wrote the book, was lying. I wouldn’t put it past Trump to have said that.
Guess I might as well chime in since I brought it up. Trump granted Wolff the interview so the conversation was direct, not hearsay. Could Wolff have “embellished”? I suppose so, but I’m not aware of any denials from the Trump camp. Professor Turley is highly reputable, and clearly believes the quote. Taken in the context of Kavanaugh “letting Trump down,” and what we know about Trump’s reaction to those who do so, I see no reason to doubt its authenticity. This is one of those things where I part company with the idea that support for Trump means support for all things Trump.
Jonathan Turley is someone that is highly reputable. He is one of two individuals that I consider a great resource on the law. The other is Trey Gowdy. If I made an arrest I would be entirely satisfied with Mr. Gowdy prosecuting the person I arrested, and I would be entirely satisfied with Mr. Turley reviewing my Incident Report.
You’re right. My sentence wasn’t clear.
No, I certainly wouldn’t either. I was looking for some context, and that’s when I realized it was a quote within a quote. I just don’t know how accurate the original quote is. The author of the book Turley is quoting is an anti-Trump guy. So the quote could be accurate, but then again . . .
Not that I dispute for a single second that Trump could have said it. However, this is the book the Landslide the quote is coming from:
That is not a favorable description of the Trump administration. I’m not at all sure Wolff is unbiased and that he would be a reliable source for a quote in context from Donald Trump. It might be, but it might not be.
Many writers want to manipulate their audience into thinking they are being objective when in fact, they are trying to make a point. It’s dishonest, and I don’t care for it very much.
So how can the Republicans discourage Sheldon and his cronies?
And to fire a warning shot over John Robert’s bow and his silly concern for the reputation of the Court.
Roberts needs to wake up. When the Constitution is no more, why would we need a constitutional court?