Kavanaugh wasn't vetted.

[gab13by13]

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]

1. Nor was the last republican installment . .. .

[mountain grammy]

37. +1000

[Locrian]

2. the fix is in....

They didnt do anything then, they wont do anything now (prove me wrong)
Makes me sick

[blueinredohio]

34. Agreed!

[2Gingersnaps]

59. Beyond tragic, but true.

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]

3. And I'd still like to know who it was that gave him the million and a half dollars to

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]

23. I don't think...

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.

[Champp]

58. .

[JT45242]

28. Exactly -- bribe or tax fraud

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]

41. If Kavanaugh is complicit in lying or corruption, he could be forced out. . nt

[Buckeyeblue]

69. This is a money issue

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]

76. This.

[fescuerescue]

80. Gifts are taxable to the giver. Not the recipient

https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/frequently-asked-questions-on-gift-taxes

[Loki Liesmith]

4. What would a fight do at this stage besides make you happy?

[gab13by13]

7. You are saying nothing can be done?

Are you a Constitutional lawyer?

[CrackityJones75]

43. Don't have the numbers to impeach him.

Do we?

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

47. In the House yes

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]

82. Nothing related to the OP... No

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]

5. While theoretically, Kavanaugh could be subject to post-installment impeachment,

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]

10. Should not Christopher Wray ne called on the carpet

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]

11. +1 n/t

[lagomorph777]

26. Wray can be removed, and should be. We have multiple major issues to investigate;

he cannot be trusted.

[paleotn]

31. Probably the best we can do....

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]

52. So I was trying to look up the role and responsibility

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]

66. The FBI was overhauled and cleaned up after the Hoover years by no less than Robert Mueller,

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]

12. The Congress couldn't even remove a traitor from

the Whitehouse. All we can do is write a stern letter.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

54. You forgot that through his negligence hundreds of thousands of people died

At least he got impeached for the being a traitor.

[70sEraVet]

14. I say, investigate the tips (must still be a record of them)

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]

42. yes, because

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]

6. badASS Boofers need to be booted

[brewens]

8. Joe gets all that information doesn't he? Hearings on this may be in order.

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]

50. I would like hearings, too

But not if they interfere with the 1/6 investigation.

I imagine it would make him miserable. I’d like the Federalist Society exposed to the general public. I wonder if someone there broke the law.

[2Gingersnaps]

68. And there we have Mango Mussolini's one true skill.

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]

9. Once a federal judge/justice is sworn in

there are only 3 ways that they can leave office:

1. resignation/retirement
2. death
3. impeachment

[Amishman]

13. Yup, 1 & 2 aren't within our control, and 3 is politically out of reach

As frustrating as it is, we're stuck with him for a generation

[gab13by13]

18. Ponder this;

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.

[NJCher]

44. or

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]

62. In my wildest dreams I cannot see us having 67 seats

It might seem like surrender, but grounded expectations keeps my blood pressure in check

[Polybius]

73. We'll never have 67 seats

And if we ever did, 5 of them would be conservative.

[JT45242]

30. what happens if he is convicted of felony tax evasion?

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]

55. same thing

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]

39. If he was convicted of a serious crime

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]

60. Yes. They would have to let him vote on cases and attend court session

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]

15. Who knows?

He might actually be interested in leaving on his own if they find the right dirt.

[HariSeldon]

16. Maybe can't take him off the court, unless...

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]

19. I agree,

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]

29. Interesting proposal; in theory there might be some merit to it...?

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]

48. Absolutely correct. Make them bleed over it even if we can't get him removed.

But stern letters seem to be the limit of our ire so far....

[leftyladyfrommo]

17. I have lost all faith in the Supreme Court. It is meaningless. Nt

[gab13by13]

20. Meaningless as far as blind justice goes,

but it is doing a lot of harm to our democracy.

[sop]

33. The Supreme Court has become a tool of corporate power.

[leftyladyfrommo]

71. I think it's been that way for a long time. nt

[TheRickles]

21. And Kavanaugh's friend never testified. He was the only other person who witnessed the assault.

Mark Judge - why was he never interviewed and interrogated? I never understood that huge omission. Someone was protecting him.

[2Gingersnaps]

61. Mark Judge was a blackout raging drunkard by high school.

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]

22. A deliberately limited, sham 'investigation'.

A deliberately limited, sham 'investigation'.

[cab67]

24. an investigation is warranted

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]

25. Maybe the solution

is to expand the Supreme Court now so his vote will be diluted.

[librechik]

49. this! n/t

Welcome to DU!

[wryter2000]

51. Yes!

Hearings might be helpful to encourage that.

[wryter2000]

53. Yes!

Hearings might be helpful to encourage that.

[oasis]

84. +kazillion!!!

^^^THIS^^^

[hurple]

27. I don't understand

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]

32. Precisely

No surprise at all.

[FM123]

35. Impeach and remove him for perjury?

(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 Kavanaugh’s 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]

36. So once a supreme court member is installed?

He can never be removed??? That Has to change.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

46. They can be removed via the impeachment process

Any changes would require a Constitutional Amendment.

[fescuerescue]

57. All it takes is a constitutional amendment.

[Generic Other]

38. 18 U.S.C. § 1001

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, there’s 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 haven’t 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]

40. Think we have four different subjects:

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]

67. We do, but they're all intertwined

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]

70. I'm all about steps and putting things in a logical order

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]

72. I am too, usually

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]

79. Yeah I don't even know what groups are investigating what.

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]

45. THIS

Notice how the MSM also covers this up.

[fescuerescue]

56. the procedure to remove him?

because he wasn't vetted?

Voluntary retirement, or Impeachment. That's it.

He isn't going anywhere.

[GoCubsGo]

63. He was vetted, and he ticked off all the boxes that mattered to the Heritage Foundation.

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]

64. Fire the Criminals

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]

65. K&R...

[brewens]

74. McConnell had said "anyone but Kavanaugh" from TFG's short list. There had to be a reason

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]

75. I remember MSM reporting credible accounts from people

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]

77. He needs to be impeached and imprisoned.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

78. Where do you see the necessary 67 votes in the Senate to convict and remove him? nt

[clementine613]

83. I agree that there isn't 67 votes now...

... 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]

81. That freak is not Supreme Court material

No matter how much Lindsey Graham breathlessly fawns over him