Judiciary Committee Drafts Two Articles Of Impeachment

There has been a lot of talk about how many Articles of Impeachment would come out of the House Judiciary Committee, and what those articles would be. Well, the time for wondering is over. The Judiciary Committee has decided they will vote on two articles to send to the full House of Representatives.

Those articles are -- 1) Abuse of Power, and 2) Obstruction of Congress. The committee will vote on those two articles on Thursday.

The text of those two Articles of Impeachment are below:

Kavanaugh Evaded Answering Too Many Hearing Questions

The Senate Republicans (and Donald Trump) said they were proud of Kavanaugh's performance before the Senate Judiciary Committee last Thursday. They were evidently living in some kind of dream world, because Kavanaugh (in addition to be strident and angry) evaded answering far too many questions.

Here is how Axios.com called it:

We went through the transcript of the hearing and noted every single time a question was asked of Ford and Kavanaugh. (We didn’t include the times a questioner didn’t ask an explicit question.) Then we noted every instance in which answered the question or said they didn’t know the answer — and we also noted every time they either refused to answer or gave an answer that didn’t address the question. Here are the results:

Kavanaugh Lied Under Oath About His H.S. Drinking

(Cartoon image is by Darrin Bell at darrinbell.com.)

Brett Kavanaugh testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday. He cried, he raged, and he did his best to pose as the victim. He also, in an attempt to paint a picture of himself as always abiding by the law, claimed several times that it was legal for him to drink beer while a senior in high school. He stated that several times in his sworn testimony before the committee.

There's only one problem with that. It is NOT TRUE. He lied.

He had said it was legal for 18 year-olds to drink in Maryland (where he went to high school). But Maryland had raised the drinking age to 21 on July 1, 1982 -- nearly 7 months before Kavanaugh turned 18 on February 12, 1983. It was never legal for Kavanaugh to drink beer (or any other alcoholic drink) before he turned 21.

Kavanaugh knew that. He just thought he could slip that lie by Congress while posing as a good person who never broke the law. But it brings up a question -- since he lied about drinking legally, what else is he lying about? Everything? It's a valid question.

I'm sure some will claim it's a small mistake, and he just didn't remember. I'm not buying it. Think about your own youth. Many of us drank before the legal age at times while a teenager. And we knew it was not legal. We also remember it as being illegal now that we are adults. So does Kavanaugh. He just stupidly didn't think anyone would check on it.

His confirmation vote has been put off for a week while the FBI investigates. I hope they find proof of more of his lies. He should never sit on the United States Supreme Court. If for no other reason, because he lied under oath to a Senate committee -- and it was witnessed by people on nationwide TV.

Senate Republicans Put On A Shameful Bit Of Theater

The Senate Judiciary Hearing was held on Thursday, and both Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh testified. Dr. Ford was credible and believable. Kavanaugh was not. But none of it makes a bit of difference anyway.

This was not an effort to get the truth. If it had been, they would have asked the FBI to investigate the new charges against Kavanaugh. They would have had other accusers testifying. And they would have had witnesses testifying that could corroborate their stories (or disprove them). But they didn't have any of that.

They didn't have it because this was nothing more than a bit of political theater. It was just an attempt by the Senate Republicans to try to provide some cover for what they have intended to do all along -- ignore all evidence and confirm Kavanaugh. Graham (pictured) made that very clear when he spent his time trying to turn Kavanaugh into the victim (he's not) and vilifying Democrats for trying to get the truth (even though all their efforts were blocked by the Republicans).

Kavanaugh's nomination will go to the Senate floor, and he will be confirmed. It's just false hope to think that Collins, Murkowski, Corker, or Flake will block the nomination. They are Republicans, and they will toe the party line. None of them have the courage to vote their convictions. That type of Republican hasn't existed since the death of John McCain.

I hope I'm wrong, But I wouldn't put any money on that remote possibility. I just hope decent Americans were watching -- and will punish the Republicans in November for putting a sex abuser on the Supreme Court.

The Cowardice Of Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans

The woman pictured here is Rachel Mitchell. She is an Arizona prosecutor, and the designated hit-person that Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans have imported to question (demonize?) Kavanaugh's first accuser (Dr. Christine Blasey Ford).

Most, if not all of those Republicans, have made it clear they do not believe Dr. Ford -- and they are determined to shove through Kavanaugh's confirmation. But none of them have the courage to do their own dirty work with cameras on them at the hearing on Thursday. These old white men are afraid if they do their own questioning, it will look like they are beating up on a woman (and terrified that will hurt their Republican cohorts in November).

Whether that is right or wrong, their action is a profile in cowardice. And that is not the full extent of their cowardice.

Why do they refuse to call any other witnesses? Dr. Ford has submitted to the committee the sworn affidavits of four witnesses who can verify her story.

Why won't they allow Deborah Ramirez to testify before the Judiciary Committee?

Why won't they allow Julie Swetnick to testify before the Judiciary Committee?

Why do they refuse to allow an FBI investigation of Dr. Ford's accusation (or those of Deborah Ramirez or Julies Swetnick)?

BECAUSE THEY ARE COWARDS -- and they are terrified that the accusations made by Ford, Ramirez, and Swetnick are TRUE!

Kavanaugh's Problems Multiplying (Do Republicans Care?)

(Cartoon image is by John Darkow in The Missourian.)

Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to be a Supreme Court Justice seemed to be a foregone conclusion. The Democrats weren't happy with his nomination (rightfully so), but they didn't have the votes to stop it. But then his past caught up with him.

It started when a college professor (Dr. Christine Blasey Ford) went public with an accusation about Kavanaugh sexually attacking her when she was 15 years old (and Kavanaugh was in high school). The Senate Republicans tried to ignore her and question why it took her so long to come forward. But her credibility was tough to question.

She had nothing to gain from the accusation. In fact, she knew she would be pilloried by the right -- and that quickly became true. She was threatened and had to move from her home for safety. We also know that she took, and passed, a lie detector test, and told this same story to a marriage counselor back in 2012 (long before Kavanaugh was nominated).

In the end, she was so credible that even the Republicans couldn't ignore her. They finally had to give in and invite her to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee -- but still refused to call any verification witnesses or allow the FBI to investigate the accusation. Evidently, they were afraid she was telling the truth, but still hoped to ram Kavanaugh's nomination through the Senate (after demonizing Ford in the hearing).

That would have been bad enough for Kavanaugh and the Republicans, but over the weekend his nomination got into more trouble -- as the dam broke on accusations anymore women came forth. It started with Deborah Ramirez, who attended Yale University with Kavanaugh. In an article in The New Yorker, she claims:

And that wasn't all. Then came some tweets from attorney Michael Avenatti like the following:

Avenatti says his client is not Dr. Ford or Ms. Ramirez, and he claims to have evidence that Kavanaugh and his buddies got girls drunk and gang-raped them.

Then we have this from the Montgomery Sentinel (in Maryland), which seems to be about a fourth woman coming forward with accusations regarding Kavanaugh.

Where there's smoke there's fire, and there's enough smoke surrounding Kavanaugh to mask a raging forest fire. Do the Republicans care? They don't seem to. Majority Leader McConnell says it's just a smear orchestrated by Democrats. If that was true, then an FBI investigation would expose it. But the Republicans still refuse to allow an investigation -- on any of the allegations.

I understand why Trump stands by Kavanaugh. Trump is incapable of admitting he made a mistake -- and in Trump's world, sexual crimes are nothing to worry about as long as the person committing them is rich, white, male, and Republican.

But with an election coming up, you'd think the Republicans in Congress would be a little smarter. Ignoring these women (or running roughshod over them) is not going to go over well with the public. It will energize voters, and hurt them in the election coming up fast.

They should make Trump withdraw the Kavanaugh nomination, or vote him down. I understand they want a right-wing judge on the Supreme Court, but there are plenty of right-wing judges that don't have Kavanaugh's kind of baggage -- and there's still time to get one confirmed.

But that would require them to exhibit some intelligence and ethics, and when was the last time congressional Republicans showed they have either?

Senate GOP Has Created Huge Problems For Themselves

In their desire to ram through the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, the Senate Republicans have created problems for themselves. Here is how Jennifer Rubin (pictured) describes that in The Washington Post:

They (Senate Republicans) will have no one to blame but themselves for setting up a number of lose-lose propositions:

• One cannot simultaneously claim there is not enough known and refuse to authorize an FBI follow-up to its original background check.
• When more allegations arise, one cannot perpetuate the notion that there is nothing to investigate.
• If the 11 male Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee have to hide behind the skirts of an outside, female attorney who will ask questions of Ford, they will look cowardly and inept; if they do it themselves, they will no doubt look like bullies. (Sen. Ted Cruz, who faces a tough Senate reelection campaign in Texas, could easily blow his race by a true-to-form obnoxious performance.)
• The committee is not calling other witnesses, but the Farrow and Mayer account set forth a batch of people who might have critical information.
• The Republicans won’t put Judge under oath as a witness, strongly suggesting that he has something damaging to say. Since he won’t be there, Democrats will accept as true that the Georgetown Prep teens regularly got intoxicated, making it impossible for them to recall accurate events when they were stone-cold drunk.
• Through a Wile E. Coyote-like disastrous attempt to prove mistaken identity, Republicans in effect conceded that Ford was attacked. They also made it nearly impossible to convince the public that someone else was the attacker.
• Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who wanted to calm down President Trump, publicly conceded that nothing Ford said was going to change their minds. They thereby set a new low standard: Even if there is credible evidence of a sex crime, the nominee gets a pass. One wonders how many women will have to come forward before they take this seriously.
• Since Trump inadvertently launched the #WhyIDidn’tReport movement, it would be awfully hard for Republicans to grill Ford (or Ramirez) on the failure to report. Ironically, Ford got some inoculation, if you will, on her decision not to step forward as a 15-year-old. She should thank the president for jump-starting the #WhyIDidn’tReport movement.

One cannot help but sense that the (ultimately losing) hardball tactics that Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) used in negotiating Ford’s appearance were designed to dissuade her from appearing for testimony. Really, that was the best chance Republicans had to get past this. Now, with their own position damaged in ways described above, they have to bet that Ford isn’t a good witness for herself and that Ramirez doesn’t offer to appear, too. In any case, one senses that Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination is in deep trouble and even his current status on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit might be imperiled.

Yale University Professors' Letter To Judiciary Committee

The Senate Judiciary Committee (controlled by Republicans) seems determined to push through the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court -- in spite of revelations that he attacked a 15 year old sexually (and lied about it). The committee has refused to ask the FBI to investigate the charge (as has been done in the past). Evidently, they are afraid an investigation will prove the charge to be true.

Many professors at Yale University (Kavanaugh's alma mater) think the committee is being unfair. And they have written a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Here is the letter the 50 professors wrote:

As the Senate Judiciary Committee debates Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination, we write as faculty members of Yale Law School, from which Judge Kavanaugh graduated, to urge that the Senate conduct a fair and deliberate confirmation process. With so much at stake for the Supreme Court and the nation, we are concerned about a rush to judgment that threatens both the integrity of the process and the public’s confidence in the Court.

Where, as here, a sexual assault has been alleged against an individual nominated for a lifetime appointment in a position of public trust, a partisan hearing alone cannot be the forum to determine the truth of the matter. Allegations of sexual assault require a neutral factfinder and an investigation that can ascertain facts fairly.  Those at the FBI or others tasked with such an investigation must have adequate time to investigate facts. Fair process requires evidence from all parties with direct knowledge and consultation of experts when evaluating such evidence. In subsequent hearings, all of those who testify, and particularly women testifying about sexual assault, must be treated with respect.

The confirmation process must always be conducted, and appointments made, in a manner that gives Americans reason to trust the Supreme Court.  Some questions are so fundamental to judicial integrity that the Senate cannot rush past them without undermining the public’s confidence in the Court. This is particularly so for an appointment that will yield a deciding vote on women’s rights and myriad other questions of immense consequence in American lives.

Why Don't The Republicans Want An Investigation ?

(Cartoon image is by Lalo Alcaraz.)

The victim of a sexual attack by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh when he was in high school has called for the FBI to investigate her claim. She did this knowing that it is a crime to lie to the FBI, and the quickest way to be exposed (if she's not telling the truth) is for the FBI to investigate.

Who doesn't want the FBI to investigate? Donald Trump, the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Brett Kavanaugh. Why? An FBI investigation would be the best way to prove his innocence.

I think we all know why the Republicans don't want any real investigation (and are doing their best to prevent one). They know that the victim is telling the truth. They are terrified that the FBI would find evidence of Kavanaugh's guilt -- and that would mean he has been lying. That would disqualify him to sit on the Supreme Court.

The Republicans are desperate to whitewash Kavanaugh and confirm him. He will rubber stamp their agenda, and protect their criminal president. So they will block an investigation, and then do their best to demonize Kavanaugh's victim. They have no shame, and long ago sold their ethics for political gain.

Anita Hill Has Some Good Advice For Senate Committee

(Photo of Anita Hill being sworn in before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1991 is by Arnie Sachs via Associated Press.)

The conduct of the Senate Judiciary Committee (especially the Republicans on the committee) was atrocious back in 1991. Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas had been accused of sexual harassment by Law Professor Anita Hill. Ms. Hill was allowed to testify, but was viciously attacked by those senators.

Now we face a similar situation as the Senate Judiciary Committee considers the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to sit on the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh has been accused of a sexual attack on a 15 year old girl while in high school. And that accuser (a college professor now) seems very credible. She has come forward even though she knew she would be attacked (and she has received death threats and had her computer hacked already). She also took (and passed) a lie detector test. And there is evidence that she told a marriage counselor (and her husband) about the attack back in 2012. Kavanaugh has denied the attack happened.

How is the Senate Judiciary Committee going to handle the controversy this time? Are they going to repeat the mistakes made in 1991? It certainly looks like they might repeat those mistakes. Republican senators have called her accusation a "drive-by hit", called her a "confused woman", and even questioned who paid for the lie detector test.

This is a mistake. And with an election coming up fast, those senators need to realize that the women of America will be watching -- and women vote in larger numbers than men do. If the GOP senators are perceived as being unfair and disrespectful when the accuser testifies, they could well be punished on election day. Control of the Senate is in play, and the Republicans are already down among women by double-digits in nearly every poll. They could make that even worse.

What should they do? Anita Hill has some advice for them in an op-ed in The New York Times. Here is what she thinks they should do:

Here are some basic ground rules the committee should follow:

Refrain from pitting the public interest in confronting sexual harassment against the need for a fair confirmation hearing. Our interest in the integrity of the Supreme Court and in eliminating sexual misconduct, especially in our public institutions, are entirely compatible. Both are aimed at making sure that our judicial system operates with legitimacy.

Select a neutral investigative body with experience in sexual misconduct cases that will investigate the incident in question and present its findings to the committee. Outcomes in such investigations are more reliable and less likely to be perceived as tainted by partisanship. Senators must then rely on the investigators’ conclusions, along with advice from experts, to frame the questions they ask Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Blasey. Again, the senators’ fact-finding roles must guide their behavior. The investigators’ report should frame the hearing, not politics or myths about sexual assault.

Do not rush these hearings. Doing so would not only signal that sexual assault accusations are not important — hastily appraising this situation would very likely lead to facts being overlooked that are necessary for the Senate and the public to evaluate. That the committee plans to hold a hearing this coming Monday is discouraging. Simply put, a week’s preparation is not enough time for meaningful inquiry into very serious charges.

Finally, refer to Christine Blasey Ford by her name. She was once anonymous, but no longer is. Dr. Blasey is not simply “Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser.” Dr. Blasey is a human being with a life of her own. She deserves the respect of being addressed and treated as a whole person.

Process is important, but it cannot erase the difficulty of testifying on national television about the sexual assault that Dr. Blasey says occurred when she was 15 years old. Nor will it negate the fact that as she sits before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Dr. Blasey will be outresourced. Encouraging letters from friends and strangers may help, but she cannot match the organized support that Judge Kavanaugh has. Since Dr. Blasey and Judge Kavanaugh have the same obligation to present the truth, this imbalance may not seem fair.

But, as Judge Kavanaugh stands to gain the lifetime privilege of serving on the country’s highest court, he has the burden of persuasion. And that is only fair.

In 1991, the phrase “they just don’t get it” became a popular way of describing senators’ reaction to sexual violence. With years of hindsight, mounds of evidence of the prevalence and harm that sexual violence causes individuals and our institutions, as well as a Senate with more women than ever, “not getting it” isn’t an option for our elected representatives. In 2018, our senators must get it right.

(Anita Hill is university professor of social policy, law, and women’s, gender and sexuality studies at Brandeis University.)

Third Gun Bill Gets Committee Approval

On Thursday, a third gun bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee. Earlier in the week a couple of other gun bills had received committee approval. The first would increase the federal penalties on gun trafficking. The second would close the background check loopholes on gun purchases (requiring a background check on all purchases, including guns sold by private citizens). This third bill would ban the sale of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

Polls show all three of the bills are supported by a majority of the American people (although the assault weapon ban is supported by a smaller majority than the other two bills). But as usual, the Republicans showed they don't really care what the American public wants (but only what will keep their tea bagger base happy in the next GOP primary). Both the expanded background checks bill and the ban on assault weapons bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee without a single Republican voting for them.

The three bills should go to the Senate floor for a vote now, but they probably won't. It is almost a certainty that the Republicans will filibuster the bills -- making it a requirement that the bills must get 60 votes before passing the Senate. The Democrats have only themselves to blame for this. They had the opportunity in January to fix the filibuster problem -- they just didn't have the political courage to do it. Now they will have to get at least five Republicans to break with their party and vote with Democrats to get any of these bills passed.

Judiciary Committee Approves Sotomayor

Judge Sonia Sotomayor has passed another hurdle on her way to becoming the first Hispanic justice on the United States Supreme Court. A couple of weeks ago, she easily handled the right wing attacks as she testified before the the Senate Judiciary Committee. She showed herself to be reasonable and experienced, and very qualified to sit on the court.

On Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved Ms. Sotomayor's nomination and sent it to the full Senate. The vote for approval was 13-6, with all the committee's Democrats and one Republican voting for the nomination.

The lone Republican was Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. This was sort of a surprise, since he was one of her toughest questioners during the hearing. Graham said, "I would not have chosen her, but I understand why President Obama did. I gladly give her my vote, because I think she meets the qualifications test. America has changed for the better with her selection." Looks like Graham has realized there are a lot of Hispanic voters in his state.

It looks like her confirmation is virtually assured now. She has the votes of all 58 Democrats, two independents (Sanders and Lieberman), and five Republicans (Graham, Martinez, Lugar, Snowe and Collins). It looks like the Supreme Court will have a new member when it starts its new session -- Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

This is another step forward for the United States.