Democratic Contenders Call for Kavanaugh Impeachment
Julian Castro, Kamala Harris, and Elizabeth Warren are pandering to the base.
New evidence that the sexual assault allegation against Brett Kavanaugh that seemed the least credible happened has sparked cries of outrage—and implausible calls for his impeachment by several Democrats trying to gain traction in the Presidential race.
A slew of prominent Democrats called on Congress to impeach Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh after allegations of sexual misconduct that had once threatened to torpedo his nomination to the bench resurfaced, even as President Donald Trump continued to defend him.
“I sat through those hearings,” Sen. Kamala Harris, a member of the Senate Judiciary Commitee and a Democratic presidential candidate, tweeted on Sunday. “Brett Kavanaugh lied to the U.S. Senate and most importantly to the American people. He was put on the Court through a sham process and his place on the Court is an insult to the pursuit of truth and justice. He must be impeached.”
[…]
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., tweeted that, “Confirmation is not exoneration, and these newest revelations are disturbing. Like the man who appointed him, Kavanaugh should be impeached.”
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, also a presidential hopeful, tweeted that, “The revelations today confirm what we already knew: During his hearing, Kavanaugh faced credible accusations and likely lied to Congress. I support any appropriate constitutional mechanism to hold him accountable.”
Slate reports that Julian Castro started the cycle:
The first Democratic presidential contender who called for Kavanaugh’s impeachment was Julián Castro. “It’s more clear than ever that Brett Kavanaugh lied under oath,” Castro tweeted Saturday night. “He should be impeached.”
Castro called for Kavanaugh’s impeachment shortly after the New York Times published an explosive report that detailed a new allegation of sexual misconduct against the Supreme Court justice. Although senators and the FBI knew about the allegation, they failed to, follow up, according to the Times piece.
The notion that we’re going to impeach, much less remove, a Supreme Court justice for actions he took as an undergraduate some three decades ago is absurd. If President Trump ordered the FBI to suppress evidence, it’s he, not Kavanaugh, who has committed an impeachable offense.
The only plausible grounds for impeaching Kavanaugh is that he lied under oath to the Senate. While I thought he was clearly lying about many things at the time and shouldn’t have been confirmed, it’s more than a little complicated to re-open that can of worms now.
Still, there are some grounds for doing so. Back to the NBC report:
Kavanaugh told the Senate Judiciary Committee under oath last year that the first time he heard of Ramirez’s allegation was in a Sept. 23 article in The New Yorker.
But according to text messages obtained last year by NBC News, in the days leading up to Ramirez’ public allegation Kavanaugh and his team were communicating behind the scenes with friends to refute the claim.
That’s a little thin, to be honest, but it’s clearly a lie. And, again, probably not the biggest lie he told the Senate.
As I noted at the time, Kavanaugh’s behavior during the hearings—the partisanship and histrionics alone were disqualifying in my book even if one believed his repeated lies—would permanently taint his tenure on the Supreme Court. Large swaths of the country will never see him as legitimate, which in turn diminishes the legitimacy of the institution. Alas, if he were somehow impeached and removed—which simply won’t happen unless the Democrats retake the Senate in 2021—a different swatch of the country will see that as an illegitimate attack on the institution.
That, alas, is the price of winner-take-all, no-holds-barred politics. Our system was built to force compromise and, thus, consensus. Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans have broken the system, perhaps irreparably.
Two things worth noting about the New York Times report that started all this and which was the subject of my post yesterday:
1. In its initial report, the Times neglected to mention that Max Stier, who claims to have witnessed Kavanaugh engage in behavior similar to that Ramirez alleged at a different Yale party during the same year, was a member of Bill Clinton’s defense team during the Lewinsky impeachment scandal. Kavanaugh, of course, worked for Ken Starr, at the time. While this doesn’t mean Stier made up the story it is relevant in evaluating his veracity; and,
2. The woman alleged to have been the victim in the second event at Yale declined to speak to the Times and friends of hers told the reporters who wrote the story that neither she nor they had any recollection of such an event happening.
The Times story has been updated to add at least the second point but both are relevant to determining the veracity of the new claims.
“There was a thread in the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings about a then-girl he and his friends shamed as promiscuous in their school yearbook. Unlike so many other accusations that were raised in the hearing we didn’t need to credit a victim’s account or those of other witnesses. The yearbook itself made what happened crystal clear. Kavanaugh simply lied about it outright. From the point of view of the hearings process this always struck me as a key moment. There was no ambiguity. He was being scrutinized for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court and he was perfectly willing to lie under oath. The conduct was less egregious than the assault allegations. But the unambiguous evidence of willful and malicious deception was clarifying.”
-josh marshall
@Teve:
That is … awfully thin. Is “we’re going to impeach a Supreme Court justice because he fibbed about some embarrassing stuff from high school that he may not even remember correctly” the rallying cry for our age?
Between this and Beto’s promise to seize guns, things are looking much better for Trump’s re-election. All the Democrats needed to do to win next year was not be crazy. And the just. Can’t. Do it.
I’m going to save that to a text file so in 14 months I can gloat over your wrongness.
@Teve:
Rubin has turned into a rabid anti-Trumper, which isn’t a bad thing but it does mean that she ought to be taken with a grain of salt when she makes claims like this.
@Teve:
I don’t want Trump to win. If he does, I’ll be incredibly disappointed. It will vindicate everything he’s done. I fear that he is going to be propelled to victory by Democrat insanity. Trump won in 2016 almost entirely on fear of Democrats. And that was with a moderate candidate who was arguably to Trump’s right. What’s going to happen when the Democratic candidate is going to take their guns, strip their insurance and force them to pay for abortions for illegal immigrants?
Agreed. She was a shill for conservatives for a long time. She’s just fluttering with the breeze that’s blowing at the moment.
@Hal_10000: There’s also promising reparations for slavery, supporting forced busing, or promising the banning of all fracking in the United States their first day in office.
@Hal_10000:
That is… awfully nice of you. How about “lying under oath is a crime even (or especially) for SCOTUS nominees” as a rallying cry?
Tell me what’s so bad about another 4 years of Trump in the White House if the alternative is a Democrat in the White House who won’t act on the most pressing issues of our time – like rampant corruption of our public institutions, medical bankruptcy, climate change and unabated mass shootings?
Seriously, if James is right that our political system has been broken by Mitch and the GOP, then is it really true that all that’s left to us is to sit and wallow in the brokenness? Is it true we must do nothing because to do something is complicated and frightens some people? No. We either take a stand against the dysfunction or we give it all to Trump to crash & burn so we might rebuild. The status quo is unsustainable.
The Republicans prevented a meaningful investigation. At the time I said that by not letting the FBI investigate it would drag this out for years. This will only be the first of many such investigations.
@MarkedMan:
“This will only be the first of many such investigations.”
This. I fully expect when the Democrats are actually able to get their hands on the documents which were withheld at the hearings regarding Kavanaugh’s alleged lies from his time in the Bush Administration, the prospect of impeachment will be raised again.
And that is why this is a non-issue for Kavanaugh. Show me the vote that would have changed if he hadn’t lied about this and I will reconsider my position.
@Hal_10000:
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…. gasp…. wheeze…
Another whopper like that might kill me.
Haysoos crispo, the Republicans have been vilifying all things Clinton for over 2 decades and that is the best cover story you can come up with?
So you are saying obstruction is OK if:
1 – it is successful and
2 – someone else has done the obstructing for you?
Yes…Trump has committed a litany of impeachable offenses, but also, Kavanaugh was confirmed based on an obstructed vetting process and at minimum that should be reviewed.
The Asylum decision from last week proves that the SCOTUS is clearly broken, and we are now seeing even more proof that the Kavanaugh process was clearly faulty.
Is it your suggestion that this country should just ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ for the next several decades of the Justice Boof court?
@Doug Mataconis:
1. Walter Schaub noted his non-partisan bonafides and honesty. As did Glenn Kirschner and others.
2. Stier never went to the press and is consistently refusing requests for comment.
3. He has run a bi-partisan group focused on government reform and good government initiatives. He has very clearly not waded into any partisan beefs or public comments.
4. He served on the staff of Congressman Jim Leach – a Republican from Iowa and clerked for Judges appointed by both parties – James Oakes (then Chief Judge for the 2nd Cir.) and David Souter.
5. Was a Presidential Transition Expert for Brett Bair & Fox News in 2016.
All of which seems more probative of him not being a partisan hack than him serving on the staff of the Hillary Clinton defense team when he was an associate at Williams & Connelly, fresh off his clerkship.
_____________
End of the day, FBI refused to investigate the claim. Why? Have an investigation into that and whether Kavanaugh lied and let the facts speak for themselves.
@Hal_10000: “What’s going to happen when the Democratic candidate is going to take their guns, strip their insurance and force them to pay for abortions for illegal immigrants?”
Of course if you look at actual polling, 72% of Americans support licensing gun ownership, 57% support a ban on assault weapons, and it’s dead even on mandatory buybacks. What you’re spreading is the NRA-fueled hysteria that all Americans love their semi-automatic weapons and will support Hitler if he’s running against a gun-grabber. It might have been true fifteen years ago, but simply parroting back received wisdom doesn’t actually make you a sage. And it might well turn out that if one real leader stands up against guns right now, a lot of people will want to follow.
One thing is for sure — if the Democrats decide to run a poll-tested, never-take-a-chance campaign, they will lose. You can’t beat something with nothing, despite the fervent wishes of the “moderate” Republicans who want the Democrats to nominate Mitt Romney.
@OzarkHillbilly:
Yeeeeeesss. That’s precisely my point. The Republicans successfully demonized a centrist candidate. What do you think they’re going to do with an actual Far Left candidate? It’ll be 1972 all over again.
@Joe: Without the cover of the lies, Collins probably doesn’t vote for him – which means that Manchin probably doesn’t either.
@Hal_10000: “Is “we’re going to impeach a Supreme Court justice because he fibbed about some embarrassing stuff from high school that he may not even remember correctly” the rallying cry for our age?”
Let me make sure I have this right:
If a Democrat lies under oath about a consensual sex act, it is not only an impeachable offense, but so heinous that no one from his family should ever be allowed to hold public office.
If a Republican lies under oath about a sexual assault, it’s a “fib” and should be given a free pass.
That about sum up your thinking?
@Hal_10000: “The Republicans successfully demonized a centrist candidate. What do you think they’re going to do with an actual Far Left candidate?”
Exactly the same thing. So why not go for the candidate we believe in, since all will be treated in exactly the same way.
Look, I understand you want the Dems to nominate Mitt Romney, but if they did even he would be called a Venezuelan socialist.
@Hal_10000:
This was pretty much demolished a few weeks ago by former DLC man Ed Kilgore. One crucial fact that everyone who clings to this “theory” overlooks is that Richard Nixon was popular in 1972–his Gallup approval ratings ranged from the high 50s to low 60s all year. Donald Trump has never been higher than the mid-40s. He could still win, but he’s not going to win a 49-state landslide. Anyone who believes that’s even remotely plausible has absolutely zero understanding of modern American electoral politics.
@Joe: “And that is why this is a non-issue for Kavanaugh. Show me the vote that would have changed if he hadn’t lied about this and I will reconsider my position.”
Honestly, I can’t think of a single GOP vote which would change upon *any* revelation about a GOP judge nominee’s actions, except those which would indicate political unreliability.
There was a session of the Senate Judiciary Committee in which ~60 nominees were passed in about an hour – one per minute.
CA, NY, WA, OR, IL, HI. CT, MA, VT, MD, RI and NJ are 12 states, (plus the DC) with 182 EV’s that we’d win if we ran Cthulhu on a seize all guns platform. So no, it won’t be 1972 no matter who we nominate. That said, 182 is not 270. We need 88 more. Where do we get them? Let’s assume VA, which is a bit purple, but in easy reach. Ditto That puts as at 195.
So what do we need? We need PA (20/215) and NM (5/220) NV (6/226) CO (9/235). From there the path turns back to the midwest. MI (16/251) MN (10/261) and WI (10/271.) There are small possible additions in NH, and portions of ME and NB, but basically we need to take our strong starting position, then add a bunch of states (PA, NM, NV, CO, MI, MN, WI) that are more gun-oriented than the base states.
Will a hard stand on gun control mean 1972? No. But will it help secure Wisconsin? Or New Hampshire or Colorado?
@SKI:
And what of the fact that the woman allegedly involved in the incident Stier claims to have witnessed has no memory of such an incident taking place?
@Doug Mataconis:
What of it? Maybe she doesn’t remember or a dozen worse incidents have blocked it out. Or maybe Stier got it wrong. But the idea that Stier–presumably an intelligent person–made this particular story up on order to get Kavanaugh is quite dumb.
What’s important, if anyone actually cares about women here, is that enough people have memories of what a misogynistic douche this guy was 30 years ago. Instead of telling the truth about himself, he screamed and raged like an abusive psycho which resonated with conservatives. Why? Because they literally don’t give a shit about women. It’s been obvious since Trump and all of the whining about how white men are being victimized and demonized–plus gun owners too, that great class of heroes–that these people like being cruel to women. Why did they elected a pussy grabber? Because sexual assault and actual trauma are jokes to these people, whereas saying a mean thing about an AR-15 is the world’s greatest insult.
@Doug Mataconis: What about it? I’m calling for an investigation, not a lynching.
Maybe Stier is wrong. Maybe it happened and she doesn’t remember. Maybe she simply doesn’t want to make herself subject to the avalanche of abuse that would come her way if she confirms the story. None of those options make Stier to be the partisan hack and liar you suggested he was.
Why are you reflexively attacking his character instead of addressing the facts? You immediately went for an ad hominem attack, Doug. Why is that?
There are plenty of reasons why the woman “doesn’t remember”. She might legit not remember, due to the circumstances (no doubt she was also inebriated). She might not care to remember, because it was horrific. She might not want the life-changing negative GOP attention. She might be subject to an NDA hastily provided when this stuff first came up. Hell, maybe she even didn’t think it was a big deal (like a lot of Repugs) and wants to brush it off.
@SKI:
@Doug Mataconis:
It really doesn’t matter.
This mess has put a cloud over the SCOTUS, and the legal system itself, which will never go away.
Buttigieg rebutted that one pretty accurately…
@Doug Mataconis: Maybe she, like many young people at college parties, was blackout drunk, and maybe Stier was the only halfway sober person there. Who knows? Maybe someone should look into it.
@Hal_10000:
Do they have twenty years to turn less than half the electorate against them? Will the Russians help them again? Will James Comey be able to commit yet another October goat fuck? Will the House and Senate have time to hold 17 separate investigations into a matter where no laws were broken by the candidate but they will be able to endlessly vilify the DEM and the media will repeat every lie? Will they once again be able to thread the electoral college needle with 80,000 votes in just the right places while losing the popular vote by over 3 million?
Do you yet see the stupidity of your assumption that “Trump won in 2016 almost entirely on fear of Democrats”?
Profound foolishness.
I’m sure that it has nothing at all to do with watching Christine Blasey Ford’s life get turned upside-down, including having to move and get a security detail, and become the target for considerable hate. I think a whole lot of people would develop amnesia under such circumstances.
It could be the case that she either doesn’t remember for other reasons, or that it didn’t happen at all. But let’s not be naive about what it means to come forward in the current climate, including having your own reputation trashed, family threatened, etc.
@wr:
Yes. Because clearly testifying in a civil lawsuit about something that was happening in the present is the same thing as testifying about something that happened 30 years ago.
Yes. There will be no difference in how the public is affected by the Republicans saying, “X will bring socialism” and the candidate themselves saying those things.
@Hal_10000: Well, when the Democratic nominee announces he or she plans to turn the country into Venezuela, then we can worry about that.
Meanwhile, and with all due respect, you allowed your party to be taken over by an obvious conman and elected him to become the worst president in the history of the country. So maybe I’m not all that concerned about electoral advice from the moderate Republicans who handed their political establishment to obvious frauds — going back at least as far as Gingrich and Ryan — simply because they loved them some tax cuts.
Or from someone who thinks that having a Supreme Court Justice who perjured himself multiple times in front of congress is a matter of “fibbing.”
@Guarneri:
Says the shallow fool.
“force them to pay for abortions for illegal immigrants?”
You had my attention right up to that point. Hyperbole much?
@wr:
They haven’t been my party for 15 years. And I opposed Trump bitterly.
Reminder: we have no idea that Kavanaugh perjured himself. He was asked about events 30 years ago that he may not remember clearly. We don’t know that his answers were false, least of all that they were deliberately so. If you’re gong to impeach someone, you need something a little more solid than, “We think he lied about how his high school buddy got his nickname.”
Bernie wants free healthcare for illegal immigrants and a repeal of the Hyde Amendment with the M4A paying for abortions. This isn’t rocket science.
If he doesn’t remember clearly he perjured himself, because I’m pretty sure his answers were to the contrary.
@Hal_10000:
Actually, I think we do know he lied as he claimed he hadn’t heard of something before the newspaper published it when we hav since learned he was messaging about it days before to try to line up counter-witnesses.
As I said at the time, I know folks who were in the same circles at the time and the charges against him were completely in character for that group. It is possible it didn’t happen but his claims about how that group behaved were risible.
Let me back up a second and re-iterate what I said a year ago because the Kavanaugh thing is emblematic of how politics has gone wrong and, now that the times has published their “correction”, we now have zero information we did not have a year ago.
The Republican have a point. Up until this accusation was made, Kavanaugh had a fine reputation. The only evidence against him is the testimony of Ford and a vague memory from Ramirez (who admitted she did not know it was Kavanaugh until someone said so later). No allegations of any bad behavior since then. Nothing. If he is innocent, than a good man has his named dragged through the mud in retaliation for a political maneuver he had nothing to do with (remember, Avenatti was claiming Kavanaugh literally orchestrated gang rapes). The Democrats are resorting to yearbook quotes and grasping at straw on perjury in the hopes that they can somehow turn back time.
OTOH, the Democrats also have a point: Ford was credible. And Kavanaugh flatly denied it instead of saying that maybe his memory of that time wasn’t clear enough. For the highest bench in the land, should we not set a higher standard? If there’s a doubt, why not just grab the next Federalist drone in the queue? I never thought and still don’t think Kavanaugh was a hill worth dying on.
Ultimately, the failure of Republicans to countenance the Dem points or the Dems to countenance the Republican points is the embodiment of our failed political system.
Oh, so you supported them during the beginning of the Iraq debacle and the Gingrich years…
There’s no way Bernie ever becomes the Democratic nominee, so you needn’t worry about that…
A small thing, but thank you James, that picture of Kavanaugh is perfect.
@Hal_10000:
So did Dennis Hastert, or Bill Cosby. I’m not sure what your point is here.
@Hal_10000: “Reminder: we have no idea that Kavanaugh perjured himself. He was asked about events 30 years ago that he may not remember clearly. We don’t know that his answers were false, least of all that they were deliberately so.”
I hate to seem like I’m piling on. I respect your opinions, usually. He didn’t say that he could not remember clearly. He said emphatically that it did not happen.
I could never prove that his reference to being a main contributor to the beach week ralph club was not about him being sensitive to spicy foods but I think he was lying. What do you think?
It isn’t fair to just say Kavanaugh just told white lies about minutiae. When you’re trying to figure out what happened with respect to an accusation or conflicting accounts of an event, you try to at least establish some factual baselines to see where the different recollections diverge, and that’s what he was lying about. So, the things he lied about were small things, in a sense, but they part of the foundational story. And he lied about them shamelessly.
As we have said numerous times, Kavanaugh could have just said he partied a lot when he was younger, did some underage drinking, but he doesn’t remember anything crazy like Ford or Ramirez are talking about. Instead he tried to absurdly re-characterize his own calendar and yearbook entries. It was kind of jaw-dropping. Imagine an attorney questioning a witness and asking, “well, at least we can all agree that [it was raining that day] [you were at X location] [the sky is blue]” and the witness says “no.” There’s a jury instruction that says that if you find a witness has lied about something you can infer that he lied about everything. That what these trivial lies were all about. There’s also the “reasonable” in reasonable doubt. We are all capable of knowing when a statement is just plain false/incredible and Kavanaugh made a bunch of statements that just didn’t past the smell test.
One thing, I think it’s funny that you noted that other people remembered what Kavanaugh did to Ramirez, as it that’s counts against her.
Anyway whatever. I guess we can’t expect all Supreme Court judges to have the integrity of Douglas Ginsburg.
@Hal_10000: I don’t think Ford was credible. There wasn’t much she could remember. It was “something happened. I don’t know where. I can’t really say when. I am not sure who”. “Maybe, perhaps, if, possibly.” And the hassle about flying on airplanes. But the whole thing was dreamed up by Senator Feinstein with her “Ghostly Letter” that was released. That part should be investigated by an independent committee made up of non-politicians and non – Federal bureaucrats. And I have some ideas on how to improve this process from start to finish concerning Supreme Court nominees. It would prevent a person and their family being dragged through the mud.