Brett Kavanaugh lied under oath. A ccording to Senator Jeff Flake and Senator Chris Coons, if he lied under oath his nomination is history. Flake will most likely ignore and confirm, but this development will be difficult one to ignore. An associate professor at North Carolina State University and a former Yale classmate of Kavanaugh, Charles Ludington, is prepared to detail Kavanaugh’s violent drunken behavior to the FBI. What he says ain’t pretty:
Read the rest of the story HERE: At www.dailykos.com
Meryl Ann Butler is an artist, author, educator and OpedNews Managing Editor who has been actively engaged in utilizing the arts as stepping-stones toward joy-filled wellbeing since she was a hippie. She began writing for OpEdNews in Feb, 2004. She became a Senior Editor in August 2012 and Managing Editor in January, (more...)
The time limit for entering new comments on this quicklink has expired.
This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.
2 people are discussing this page, with 3 comments
Swamp creatures---or more accurately---sewer rats, engaging in a pseudo hearing, rudely disrupted by the intrusion of Truth. The hearing itself a window into the collective psychpathology of Washinton DC socalled political culture. Drugs, prostitution, abuse, pedophilia are endemic. That is why the results, are wars injustice, poverty, racism, planetary dispoiliation. Kavanaugh was an abusive drunk. Now he applies to legalize on a global and national scale his abusive behavior as an individual. Most politicians do the same things. They call it "Success".
The issue is no longer what did or did not happen in the summer of 1982, but whether Kavanaugh can answer a straightforward question without deflecting, or being evasive p, or throwing the question back at the questioner.
The issue is whether he is honest.
What was most impressive about the testimony of Christine Blasey Ford is that she tried to answer every question to the best of her ability. When she didn't know the answer, she said so. She was not evasive or defensive. Even those who were inclined to disbelieve her recognized that she was candid and honest.
The same cannot be said about Kavanaugh. He was arrogant, belligerent, condescending, and evasive.
(Member since Oct 25, 2009), 20 fans, 17 articles, 3547 quicklinks, 6436 comments, 1 diaries
My friend Diane Ravitch said this: "What the nation saw with Brett Kavanaugh's arrogant, aggressive, abrasive, lie-filled Judiciary Committee statement, was what Kavanaugh truly is, especially when he's alcohol-fueled.
Republicans don't care about truth, or the Constitution, or women's rights or voting rights, or the environment. They care about raw power and money, and they will subvert all -- every one -- of the republic's core democratic values to get and keep them, even if it means using Russian intelligence agencies to do so.
Republicans are -- in fact -- a clear and present national security danger."
and this"
"But he also lied about being a neutral arbiter of the law. As Steve Pearlstein noted in The Post six years go in a case that involved EPA pollution regulations.
"But in reading the 60-page opinion by Judge Brett Kavanaugh, you'd have no clue of this historical, political, economic or health context"You'd have no idea that hundreds of dedicated, highly trained scientists, analysts and statisticians at the EPA might have spent more than a decade devoted to the extremely complex task of figuring out how much of the ozone or sulfur dioxide in the air in Rhode Island originated in Indiana.
"You'd have no idea that legions of government lawyers and economists might have spent a decade listening to, and negotiating with, state officials, industry groups and environmental advocates on an equitable formula for reducing pollution in the least costly way".You'd have no idea that, in earlier decisions, the same court had found it a reasonable formula resulting in reasonable compliance costs, but sent an earlier version back to be reworked because it didn't make the air clean enough."
Instead, what you get is 60 pages of legal sophistry, procedural hair-splitting and scientific conjecture".You find a judge without a shred of technical training formulating his own policy solution to an incredibly complex problem and substituting it for the solution proposed by experienced experts"You find an appeals court judge so dismissive of the most fundamental rules of judicial restraint that he dares to throw out regulations on the basis of concerns never raised during the rule-making process or in the initial court appeal."
1
1
