Kavanaugh gets 3 Pinocchios for his Senate testimony from washingtonpost #Factchecker.
He has a severe credibility problem. I can see why Republicans are panic rushing his confirmation vote. 1/
Kavanaugh’s “claims defy logic. An elite Republican lawyer who was immersed at the time in Washington’s inside baseball, Kavanaugh strains credulity by claiming this extraordinary window he had into Democrats’ thinking seemed aboveboard.“ 2/
”He received a steady stream of insider information over nine months from Miranda, according to the documents available. It reminds us of Sergeant Schultz in the 1960s TV show “Hogan’s Heroes” — ‘I see nothing! I hear nothing! I know nothing!’” 3/
4/ “Best-case is that Kavanaugh has a glaring lack of curiosity or a superficial level of discernment. Worst-case is that he has been feigning ignorance since his first confirmation hearing in the Senate in 2004,” after Senate sergeant-at-arms report on Miranda’s serial theft.
5/ “Kavanaugh’s response to Leahy this month — describing all this as “the usual kinds of discussions that would happen” — is not accurate. Neither was his answer to written questions in 2004: “These meetings, calls, and emails were typical...”
6/ “...of how judicial confirmations have been handled in past Administrations.” Neither was his response to Durbin at 2004 hearing: “There was nothing out of the ordinary of what Senate staffs would tell us or what we would hear from our legislative affairs folks.” #Kavanaugh
7/ ”All three statements merit Three Pinocchios,” concludes #FactChecker on Kavanaugh.
That’s really bad.
As I’ve written, Kavanaugh’s misrepresentations and non-credible statements have piled up.
8/ See this thread on Kavanaugh’s non-credible claims about being “shocked” by Kozinski’s harassment of female clerks. There is still a question about what he knew and when he knew it:
9/ On his own jurisprudence: Kavanaugh: “I did not cast doubt on Humphrey’s Executor.”
False. And dangerous. He’d vote to expand Trump’s power to unprecedented levels. shugerblog.com/2018/09/06/kav…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ I just thought I'd tweet about U.S. anti-nepotism law today:
After Bobby Kennedy had served as JFK's attorney general, Congress passed a federal anti-nepotism law in 1967: "A public official may not appoint, employ, promote, advance, or advocate for appointment...
2/ "...employment, promotion, or advancement, in or to a civilian position in the agency in which he is serving or over which he exercises jurisdiction or control any individual who is a relative of the public official." law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/…
3/ "For the purpose of this section— (1) “agency” means—
(A) an Executive agency"
So hypothetically, is Ambassador to the UN an "agency" under this law?
This article is wrong legally and politically.
Supreme Court Justices have life tenure, because "good behavior" tenure means life tenure. This "textualist" argument is silly, because constitutional textualism still relies on context and public meaning. 1/ newrepublic.com/article/151620…
2/ There are so many sources, but let's start with Hamilton, Federalist 78: These are his caps, not mine:"All judges who may be appointed by the United States are to hold their offices DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR; which is conformable to the most approved of the State constitutions..."
3/ I’m not going to tweet the text of Federalist 78. Just read it here. It is one of the best pieces of constitutional thought, and it is clear and concise. Must-read for anyone who wants to understand constitutional law. Goldstone does not get it. avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/f…
1. The Trump/Alfa Bank server connection during the campaign wasn't random. 2. Trump and the GOP just appointed Brian Benczkowski, a lawyer who worked for Alfa Bank, to lead the DOJ's criminal division, and he refuses to recuse himself.
What the hell is going on here?
3. Must-read Filkins's New Yorker piece linked above. The Trump/Russia link is striking, and DeVos and Erik Prince are also implicated.
“And we thought, Why the hell is a Russian bank communicating with a server that belongs to the Trump Organization, and at such a rate?”...
4. Also a damning indictment of the @nytimes for running the headline "Investigating Donald Trump, FBI Sees No Clear Link to Russia” on eve of election, downplaying Alfa Bank links.
Lichtblau: “We were saying that the investigation was basically over—and it was just beginning,”
Reminder #1: @nytimes cracked @realDonaldTrump's decades of criminal tax fraud.
Reminder #2: State Attorneys General have solid basis to use their #QuoWarranto powers to investigate and potentially dissolve the Trump Organization and LLCs. cc: @TishJames@NewYorkStateAG THREAD
2/ When it was unclear how to pursue #Emoluments suits against Trump because of standing problems in Feb. 2017, I wrote about the history of the powerful "quo warranto" writ and the statutory powers of state AGs to investigate corporate fraud. shugerblog.com/2017/02/09/sta…
3/ The old English writ of Quo Warranto has been enacted into state law as a state power to investigate corporate fraud through civil, not criminal process. @realDonaldTrump can try to fire Mueller and Rosenstein, but he cannot stop the state AGs.
Democrats winning back the Senate in 2018 is possible. But people are overlooking how each of these 2018 races for taking back the Senate in 2021.
The 2020 Senate map is OK, but not great.
Every seat now brings control in 2020 a little closer. We need to work harder now. 1/
2/ Senate is 51 R-49 D now. To win back the Senate, the Dems have to hold 5 red states (WV, ND, MT, MO, IN) + FL, and flip NV and AZ. If Dems lose in any of those states, they need to replace it with @BetoORourke in TX or @PhilBredesen in TN.
I'm hopeful, but not optimistic. 2/
3/ The good news in 2020 is that the Dems are defending only one red state (Doug Jones/Alabama, don’t get your hopes up).
But there are only 2 blue states with GOP Senators in trouble (Collins-Maine, Gardner-Colorado).
Let’s assume that’s net +1 for Democrats...
This person giving a long speech about how sure she is that Roe and precedent are safe is the same person who was sure she got an amazing ACA fix for a huge tax cut for the super-rich.
How’s that working out for you, @SenatorCollins!
3/ And Kavanaugh’s opinions signal a dismissiveness of precedent (Humphrey’s Executor 9-0, Morrison v Olson 7-1) in his support for dramatically expanding presidential power: slate.com/news-and-polit…