U.S. Supreme Court

A ‘rigged’ FBI investigation in the Kavanaugh coverup (Updated)

by

Arizona Senator Jeff Flake called for a thorough FBI background investigation while speaking at an event in Boston. “It does no good to have an investigation that gives us more cover, for example,” he said. “We actually have find out what we can find out.”

While the Twitter-troll-in-chief lied his ass off in tweets and press statements that the FBI could follow any lead and speak to any witness, White House legal counsel Don McGahn, a longtime friend of Judge Kavanaugh’s, made certain the background investigation would be severely restricted. To borrow Trump’s favorite phrase, the FBI background investigation was “rigged.”

Bloomberg News reports that the FBI did not even interview the principals involved. FBI Lacks White House Approval to Talk to Kavanaugh and Ford.

NBC News reports that the FBI has not contacted dozens of potential sources in Kavanaugh investigation:

More than 40 people with potential information into the sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh have not been contacted by the FBI, according to multiple sources that include friends of both the nominee and his accusers.

[S]ources close to the investigation, as well as a number of people who know those involved, say the FBI has not contacted dozens of potential corroborators or character witnesses.

More than 20 individuals who know either Kavanaugh or Ramirez, who has accused the nominee of exposing himself to her while the two attended Yale University, have not heard from the FBI despite attempts to contact investigators, including Kavanaugh’s roommate at the time and a former close Ramirez friend.

Read more

Maricopa County prosecutor Rachel Mitchell’s unprofessional memo

by

Republican strategist Rick Wilson authored the book Everything Trump Touches Dies.

This is likely to include the professional legal career of Maricopa County prosecutor Rachel Mitchell.

Hired to be a “human shield” for Republican senators in questioning Christine Blasey Ford last week, she proved to be ‘not effective’ in questioning Ford.

Mitchell had barely begun asking questions of Judge Kavanaugh when she zeroed in on his July 1 calendar entry which might corroborate Dr. Blasey’s recollection of a party. Republican senators insulted her by summarily dismissing her, never to be heard from again.

Eleven old white men didn’t want to hear from any woman, even their hired gun.

Mitchell has since compounded her catastrophic performance by providing a partisan political memo to the GOP senators who hired her. Her memo violates the rules of professional conduct for attorneys and prosecutors. Her desire to be in the national spotlight may wind up costing her.

Read more

12 Angry Men: pity the privileged white male patriarchy

by

Twelve Angry Men is a gripping courtroom drama about a murder trial in which a single dissenting juror holds out from a unanimous verdict of guilty because he has reasonable doubt.

Last week we saw a different context for “Twelve Angry Men”: eleven privileged white male Republican senators and privileged white male Judge Brett Kavanaugh in a collective primal scream against the outrage of anyone, especially this woman, challenging their privileged white male patriarchy, nay their God-given right to rule over our us.

It was a defense of the old world order of privileged white male patriarchy, to paraphrase William F. Buckley, Jr., “standing athwart the tide of history and demographics yelling Stop at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.”

If Christine Blasey Ford had behaved the way that Judge Kavanaugh or Senator Lindsey Graham behaved, she would have been immediately dismissed as a shrill harpy who was being hysterical (typical male stereotypes for a woman who speaks up). But Republicans cheered this behavior in the Twelve Angry Men defending the privileged white male patriarchy. Why?

The Washington Post reports, ‘The trauma for a man’: Male fury and fear rises in GOP in defense of Kavanaugh:

The sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh have sparked a wave of unbridled anger and anxiety from many Republican men, who say they are in danger of being swept up by false accusers who are biased against them.

From President Trump to his namesake son to Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), the howls of outrage crystallize a strong current of grievance within a party whose leadership is almost entirely white and overwhelmingly male — and which does not make a secret of its fear that demographic shifts and cultural convulsions could jeopardize its grip on power.

Read more

‘Small lies matter’ and are disqualifying in and of themselves

by

However you may feel about former FBI Director James Comey, he said something this past week which should be determinative for U.S. senators: “small lies matter.”

Screen Shot 2018-09-30 at 8.31.27 AM

“Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” is a legal principle that dictates jurors can rule a witness to be false in everything if he says one thing that is not true.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh has mislead the Senate and has told lies, both big and small, in each of his confirmation hearings over the years for the court of appeals and the Supreme Court. These lies are disqualifying in and of themselves. There should be no doubt after Thursday’s disastrous performance that Judge Kavanaugh is unfit to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, and possibly even remain on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Read more

First Monday in October: SCOTUS Preview

by

The U.S. Supreme Court term for 2018-19 begins on the first Monday in October.

While all attention is on the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings and what may come next from a “limited” FBI background investigation and confirmation vote scheduled for later this week, the court does have important business on the docket.

Dara Lind at Vox.com has a preview of court business:

On Monday, October 1, the Supreme Court will start its 2018-’19 term. Since nominee Brett Kavanaugh hasn’t even had a confirmation vote in the full Senate, there [will] be only eight justices on the Court when the term begins.

* * *

The Supreme Court is perfectly able to function with only eight justices — they did so for over a year after Justice Antonin Scalia died in February 2016. (Republicans refused to confirm a replacement nominated by Barack Obama, and the seat was ultimately filled in April 2017 by Trump nominee Neil Gorsuch).

The only potential hiccup is a 4-4 case that makes it impossible to issue a nationwide ruling on a subject — but the Court has enough control over when it takes cases, and when it rules on them, that it could easily go through the first few months of the term without having to issue a 4-4 ruling on a case it would rather have a 5-4 ruling on.

Read more