The following scenario is one of the best examples of how the current Supreme Court nominee is a maestro at dissembling and prevaricating to where it can be said that he has to be lying. There is proof that Judge Brett Kavanaugh had been in receipt of stolen emails while he worked for the Bush administration, which was used to derail a democratic judicial nominee, but first he denied awareness of these memos/ emails, and then he disclaimed knowledge that they had been stolen from 2004- 2018 while being questioned by US senators at Congressional hearings. Because of the content of this data, his denials defy logic.
The following story demonstrates Judge Kavanaugh’s dissembling artistry to where it has to be mission impossible for any reasonable legislator to take anything that he says, at face value…
On September 20, 2018, Salvador Rizzo of the Washington Post penned the following analysis, ‘Brett Kavanaugh’s unlikely story about Democrats’ stolen documents’
Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.): “I guess what it boils down to is this. Since you’ve worked up here for so long, you had to be able to spot things that were being said that looked revealing. When Manny Miranda has a revelation about questions that might be asked of a nominee or what the schedule is going to be under a Democratic chairman, did that ever come up? And did it ever raise a question in your mind that perhaps he knew just a little bit too much for a staffer on Capitol Hill?”
Brett M. Kavanaugh: “I have thought about this, Senator. There was nothing out of the ordinary of what Senate staffs would tell us or what we would hear from our legislative affairs folks. That said, I cannot tell you whether something that he said at some point, directly or indirectly, derived from his knowledge that may have come from these documents. I just cannot speak to that at all. I can say, in direct response to your question, that, no, I never suspected anything untoward. Had I suspected something untoward, I would have talked to Judge Gonzales about it, who I know would have talked to Senator Hatch about it, but I never did suspect anything untoward.”
— Exchange at Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing for the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, April 27, 2004
“I knew Mr. Miranda, as he and many other Senate staffers were part of regular meetings, telephone calls, and emails about the judicial confirmation process. These meetings, calls, and emails were typical of how judicial confirmations have been handled in past Administrations. I never knew or suspected that he or others had obtained information from Democratic computer files.”
— Part of Kavanaugh’s response to written questions from Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), Nov. 19, 2004
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.): “Have you ever gone back, now that you are aware of it, and seen what decisions you may or might not have taken on the basis of documents that were illegally taken? …”
Kavanaugh: “Senator, there’s a very important premise in your question that I think is incorrect, which is, I didn’t know about the memos or see the memos that I think you’re describing. So, I think —”
Kennedy: “Oh, you never saw any of those?”
Kavanaugh: “No, Senator. That’s correct. I’m not aware of the memos. I never saw such memos that I think you’re referring to. I mean, I don’t know what the universe of memos might be, but I do know that I never received any memos and was not aware of any such memos. So, I just want to correct that premise that I think was in your question.”
— Exchange at Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing for the D.C. Circuit, May 9, 2006
Leahy: “Did any of this raise a red flag in your mind?”
Kavanaugh: “It did not, Senator, because it all seemed consistent with the usual kinds of discussions that would happen. And sometimes people do say things of here’s what my boss is thinking, but don’t share it around. I mean I must’ve had so many conversations in the course of my life like that where someone’s saying like that about something. In other words, trying to give you a heads up on something. And that just seems standard Senate staff.”
— Exchange at Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing for the Supreme Court, Sept. 6, 2018
Did Kavanaugh know he was getting stolen information while he worked at the White House? This is one of the biggest questions Democrats have raised about Kavanaugh’s credibility, and we set out to investigate.
Manuel Miranda, a Republican Senate staffer who was quarterbacking the GOP’s moves on judicial nominees, stole a trove of internal documents from Democrats on the Judiciary Committee between 2001 and 2003, assisted by a clerk.
Miranda shared some of those documents, or key details gleaned from them, with Kavanaugh and other GOP allies working to secure Senate confirmation for some of President George W. Bush’s polarizing judicial nominees.
“As strategic advantages go, Miranda had struck gold, gaining real-time access to the opposition’s innermost thinking during a bitter partisan standoff over the composition of the federal courts.”
“The stolen documents covered the Democrats’ tactics and plans in minute detail — and also their talking points, potential lines of inquiry for some nominees, eerily precise details about Democratic maneuvering inside caucus meetings, specific news articles Democrats were circulating among themselves as they researched nominees and other juicy insider information. (And that’s just what’s in the limited amount of records released from Kavanaugh’s time at the White House.)”
“Kavanaugh has maintained since 2004 that he had no inkling he was privy to stolen information. Our review of all the records and testimony on this issue shows that Kavanaugh’s repeated pleas of ignorance warrant heavy skepticism.”
“In 2001, Jason Lundell, a clerk in the Senate’s nominations unit, found a security lapse in the Judiciary Committee’s network that gave wide access to any files stored in Democrats’ or Republicans’ folders, according to a March 2004 report by the Senate sergeant-at-arms. Miranda often told Lundell where to search “and would sometimes tell him that there was something new in a particular folder and ask the clerk to print it for him,” according to the report.”
“Regardless, did Kavanaugh have any reasons of his own to suspect something wasn’t quite right? Even if Miranda never told Kavanaugh precisely how he got the information, the information itself was richly detailed and yielded a ton of clues.”
“We put together a timeline of the intel Miranda was feeding in real time to Kavanaugh and other GOP allies in Washington. Some question marks in the documents released by the Senate that were meant to be apostrophes or quotation marks have been changed for clarity.”
The Pinocchio Test
“Kavanaugh since 2004 has faced dozens of questions from senators of both parties about this issue and has given essentially the same answer: Nothing seemed fishy because Senate staffers often shared this kind of information across party lines.”
Questions arose once again at Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing for the Supreme Court this month, and once again, he gave the same see-no-evil answer. Even in hindsight, years after the document breach was revealed, Kavanaugh has maintained that nothing raised red flags and that he never received documents that appeared to be stolen or obtained in an “untoward” manner.
“These 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. 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!”
“Particularly questionable are Kavanaugh’s claims about the Peddie letter (Miranda seemed to quote directly from material Democrats had received confidentially) and about the Graves memo, which went on in breathtaking detail about Democrats’ strategy for a big, contentious political battle that year.”
“The best-case scenario is that Kavanaugh, who is up for a seat on the nation’s highest court, has a glaring lack of curiosity or a superficial level of discernment. The worst-case scenario is that he has been feigning ignorance since his first confirmation hearing in the Senate in April 2004, which was held after the Senate sergeant-at-arms had released his report documenting Miranda’s serial theft.”
“In any case, 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 of how judicial confirmations have been handled in past Administrations.” Neither was his response to Durbin at the 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.” All three statements merit 3 Pinocchios.”
Gronda, from the reporting you have gleaned, it is apparent that Kavanaugh is a very political judge who is prone to lying to cover up his faux pas. Again, Dr. Ford passed a lie detector test and is calling for an investigation. Why would she do this if her accusations did not have merit? Keith
LikeLiked by 1 person
It has become obvious that Judge Brett Kavanaugh is ethically challenged.
You would think that the republicans would have recommended the best of the best among conservative justices. But oops, the president was the one to add his name to the list of judges that he could pick from because he liked Judge Kavanaugh’s writings regarding executive powers.
And this is what you get which is the least qualified he could find except that Judge Kavanaugh has the moral rectitude to rule in the president’s favor whenever and wherever possible.
Agree, but the public has no control in any of this. It’s designed to give the ruling party, which is now the republicans, control. And control for a lifetime. There should be a better way for the Supreme Court to be organized, like a fair representation from both parties and perhaps not a life long appointment.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dear Mary Plumbago,
That ‘we the people’ have any say in this GOP fiasco over the Brett Kavanaugh SCOTUS nomination is because of the November 2018 elections and the GOP leaders knowing that they are hemorrhaging from the lack of women voters.
The way they are handling this nomination is not fooling anyone. They want to give the appearance of being fair to Dr. Ford while being anything but fair.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Comments are closed.