Lordy. You could be right, but I don't really want to imagine the hard-right backlash to that. And I think your Medea assessment would still apply there. I sense he could become too severe or extreme as an AG, despite his own better angels. But I could see him shining on the floor of the Senate where he could use his litigator's talents for calling out the opposition's [blankety-blank] and sharply outlining the flaws or dangers of bad policy. And otherwise just duking it out in the service of his higher ideals. He'd be a championship filibusterer.
ETA: not a prediction necessarily. Just an assessment of what I've read on his character.
Numerologist welcome. Thank you for your insight and knowledge about the dates. I’m glad to think that Christine Ford had a destined life moment. She certainly riveted the women of this world.
The Dalai Lama said that western women will change the world. Ford was a catalyst of that change and I think she knows it.
And we need a warrior like Avenatti with his strength and confidence . The GOP will try to turn his own people against him by criticizing him. I will not play into it and hope others won’t either. They specialize in throwing their own dark mud at our champions in hopes we will turn against our own. I hope people can see through that.
I love our hero’s. Kamala is another hero.
For the past two days off and on, I have been hearing scratching and the sound of paper rustling in my head. I had been just dismissing it as someone having mice in their house and tra la la-ing my way toward the next shiny object that distracts me. I am sure my guides are constantly slapping their foreheads ?. Anyway, I finally sat down and meditated on the sounds I was hearing today. I saw a small man with a bad comb over sitting at a very messy desk. His white shirt is rumpled and the sleeves are rolled up. It is dark around him with only the light of his desk lamp. I feel he is pulling all nighters and is very tired. He is working frantically. The scratching sound is his pen on the papers and the rustling is when he shuffles through all the documents scattered on his desk. On one of the papers, I see Kavanaugh written and it had been crossed out. In my peripheral vision to the left, there is something that has been blurred out. I asked what that was, and was told I didn’t need to know yet. I feel confident that there are things going on behind the scenes that will stop this power grab. Have patience. I am not sure who this guy is or who he works for, just that he was a small man taking on some big foes backing this confirmation. Kind of a David and Goliath thing. The ABA comes to mind. Does anyone know what power they have to investigate or how someone is disbarred? It feels like some other group besides the Senate ends Kavanaugh’s time on the bench. I don’t know if it is the FBI either although they may become involved again later. Maybe comb over guy works for Avanetti. I am not sure. I do think this nomination fiasco is going to eventually take down more people than just frat boy Bret.
On another note, I don’t know much about astrology. Maybe Vestralux or someone else can help me out here. I had heard that Sept was a month of digging deep to examine and rid ourselves of old wounds or other stuff we needed to clear. That makes sense with all the stories finally being told about sexual assault. I am not sure of the day, maybe today, but Venus is going retrograde soon which will bring about the rebirth of the Goddess. She will set about rebalancing the out of control male energy that has been running amok. To me, that doesn’t sound like good news for Kavanaugh or his supporters.
I haven't posted but I have been following this thread with interest. I just want all of you who have posted, or who follow this thread to know that your spirits have been felt through this forum. Thanks to you all for sharing your stories, your pain. I wish we could all huddle up for a group hug and a good, healing cry. Much respect and love to you all. I am sending all the light and love I have to you all. -q
A friend who is much more astute about legal matters pointed out that the reason the GOP may want to get Kavanaugh on the bench so quickly is due to something on the SCOTUS docket in October: Gambel v. U.S: "Whether the Supreme Court should overrule the 'separate sovereigns' exception to the double jeopardy clause." This has something to do with saving politicians from state charges, including people who were knowingly enriched by $$$ funneled through the NRA into coffers such as McConnell, Graham, Rubio, etc. (VestraLux's image of Putin fits into this explanation, I think.) In case someone can better translate legalese into lay language, here's the link to SCOTUSblog:
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gamble-v-united-states/
The thought is that if Kavanaugh gets appointed, he can get on the Supreme Court before this case and stop states from charging Trump or other politicos.
It seems plausible that in the GOP mind, Kavanaugh's appointment really does have nothing to do with Dr. Ford. It's about protecting GOP's bad behavior from repurcussions.
At this point, my prayers and light are going out to Lady Justice herself. May she prevail.
Quiet, so many warm hugs, love, and light back to you. Thank you for sending out your warmth. And I hope you'll keep posting!
Laughing Pudding, I nearly stood up when I read your post! Ughhhh.
The reasons this guy shouldn't be allowed to sit on that bench for even half-an-hour just keep mounting.
It seems plausible that in the GOP mind, Kavanaugh's appointment really does have nothing to do with Dr. Ford. It's about protecting GOP's bad behavior from repurcussions.
What you point out here make my blood run cold as well. And it fits who these people are. It is the way of the GOP.
They have no honor or decency. The hearing was a charade for them - something they wanted to avoid but had to go through. The way Grassley assured his people that they would absolutely confirm this judge shows he had to get the man confirmed for some urgent purpose.
Kamala Harris's refusal to speak or even acknowledge Grassley as he called for a vote was the most appropriate response of all.
I'm not a lawyer, but I did really enjoy my law class in high school.
This is an issue that the ACLU has been backing and trying to get thru. They have filed an amicus brief in this case supporting the overturning of this double jeopardy clause. Here's an article on their site explaining why they support Gamble in this case: ACLU: Gamble v United States
The Republicans may be hoping to use the overturning of Gamble v United States to their favor, but whether they could or not remains to be seen-pending how the ruling is worded if Gamble is favored. It seems to be a legal quagmire of sorts. Orrin Hatch has also filed an amicus brief supporting the overturn of the law. Here's an analysis of how it may or may not affect the Russia investigation: The Atlantic: Gamble v United States
Right now any president can only pardon convicted individuals who were charged with offenses against the US. In other words, they can only pardon where the individual was convicted of federal charges and tried by the US. State charges are not covered by executive pardons. This is why many have noted that Preet Bahara was fired from his position in the NY Attorney General's office. They believed he was compiling NY state offenses against Trump and his cohorts, which cannot be pardoned by Trump. The same will apply to any other individual who is caught up in the Russian investigation. If there are state charges that can be brought against any of those involved, Trump, the Republicans, et al cannot touch the case. There is also the question of whether a sitting president can be charged with a federal crime while in office, but the matter is much more unclear if they can be charged with state crimes while in office.
It will mean that there is no back up plan if a case must be prosecuted by the Feds. The law as it currently stands allows failed Federal cases to then be retried at the state level. Conversely, if there is enough of a language difference in the state and federal laws, then double jeopardy does not apply, as they are seen as two different charges. That said, there are those legal minds that are arguing that the laws against double jeopardy which would exist would not apply if the defendant was not in real jeopardy. In other words, if a co-conspirator of Trump's was put on trial by the feds, and found guilty, was he really in jeopardy of paying any consequences when there was a pardon with his name on it ready to be signed from the start? It could legally be argued that the defendant was in no real jeopardy from the start, therefore the double jeopardy rule would not apply.
It is an odd day when the Republicans are on the same side as the ACLU, now isn't it?
On another note-this interview with Kavanaugh is eye opening. It was done with a staffer from the Judiciary Committee, and as such it is mandatory that it be transcribed and put on record. Those records can be accessed by the general public. In this interview, there are six-yes count them- six questions to Kavanaugh that the committee had about sexual aggression that they had been made aware of and were questioning him about: US Senate interview
To all those that had the courage to speak up, whether here, at home, or elsewhere-keep doing so. It is shining a light on the issue and people are listening.
Yesterday on the way to church, I had the gut feeling Monica had a message for me. I flipped the radio station to the pre-set button number my gut told me to push. This song started playing seconds later: Mariah Carey It was not the first time she's sent me this song, but in this case, I knew it was meant to say that all of us who are survivors fit this particular bill.
Women have been abused for so long, and we have the strength to not only bear it, but to break the chain. We don't seek an eye for an eye, or return violence for violence. This is why we will rise. This is why Justice has always been depicted as being female.
An interesting article about a whitewashing of the investigation: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-confusion-surrounding-the-fbis-renewed-investigation-of-brett-kavanaugh?mbid=nl_Daily%20100118&CNDID=30558123&utm_source=Silverpop&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%20100118&utm_content=&spMailingID=14349939&spUserID=MTgxMDcxMTgzMzYyS0&spJobID=1500066186&spReportId=MTUwMDA2NjE4NgS2
But then there's this. I'm just confused now. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/us/politics/trump-fbi-kavanaugh.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
Cindy, thank you for your excellent breakdown and for linking to the Atlantic piece especially. I'm hopeful Maddow will dive into this issue tonight.
And, again, I'm so moved by your beautiful connection to your daughter in spirit. I've never given that song quite so much of my attention. I agree with you; our scars have made us strong. Women are rising because it is time to bring these injustices into the light.
When my own daughter was a little girl, I came across the following poem, which stuck with me deeply over the years. Its message comes to mind again today as we're all holding up a light for Dr. Ford and the other women who've come forward, for the members of the FBI investigating team, for every member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and for our country as a whole.
Little Blue Eyeglasses
– Louise Erdrich
Little blue eyeglasses,
I give you the honored task
of assisting my youngest daughter
in her work, which is to see not only
general shapes but specific details
and minute variations in the color and texture
of objects ranging from immense
(Ocean. Sky.) To very tiny.
(Invertebrate hidden at the edge of carpet.)
Little blue eyeglasses,
I charge you with the solemn responsibility
of depth perception. Guide her steps
through dim corridors
and allow her to charge down
the staircase into my arms
without injury. Above all,
little blue eyeglasses,
train her eyes upon the truth
and let her eyes rest in the truth
and help her see within the truth the strength
to bear the truth.
There is something here I really don't understand.
The really serious problem with Kavanaugh is that he's very likely to make decisions that make Trump, his friends and a lot of other Republicans that have done very questionable things walk scot-free. He's likely to agree that the president can't be indicted, people can't be tried by the states if they have been pardoned at the federal level, etc.
If the Senate was dominated by people with a real interest in justice, you'd think they wouldn't choose him for that very reason. That's the sort of thing that you'd expect the hearings to be about. Or maybe not, because you'd expect him to be eliminated before this point for his dangerous beliefs.
Instead, the hearings are dominated by what he was up to when he was 17. Agreed that he was up to no good, but isn't that a strange choice of issue to focus on? Surely there are more questionable issues around this man? This is clearly a Democratic strategy, why do they think this one is the one with the best chances of working? We know Republicans don't care too much about sexual assault, Trump got elected in spite of that. So why did Democrats think it might work in this case? Am I missing something?
The basis of your argument should be the basis of his failure to be confirmed, however, in this era of hyperpartisanship, the GOP will vote him thru with or without hesitation to those issues. There is also a lot of speculation that a number of Republicans want him on for those exact reasons.
That argument would not keep him from the court, so the Democrats are using whatever they can grab ahold of to sway the needed 2 votes. Their general basis for not wanting him confirmed is the same as yours but it is a losing battle, whereas sexual assault/lying/driknking is one that they have a chance to win so they are going that route. The GOP no longer cares about overall popularity. They only care about the far right base, which is forcing opposition to completely abandon sense and their normal strategy
Responding to Maria White. They did focus on Kavanaugh's partisan record, whether he'd do the president's bidding and enable him to be pardoned, and his veracity.
But the GOP Senators are not interested in justice and they have the majority votes. They just wanted to get him confirmed. And the democrats who raised all those other issues were ignored.
Senator Feinstein (D-CA), ranking democrat on the Judicial Committee, deliberately did not focus on his alleged teenage assaults even though she had that information months earlier, until someone, probably her own staff, leaked it as a last gasp attempt to stop his confirmation.
All of the earlier information about the issues you point out are the most important ones was in the press for weeks. But the teenage and college assaults came up at the last minute and that got the attention of women all over the world which the GOP knows could crash their whole party.
P.S. Just after I posted this reply, I saw that MAS1581 was saying the same. ?
That is a direct link to the story in Jessi's post. The up shot is that Yale classmates of Debbie Ramirez's were getting text messages from Kavanaugh and his people asking these former classmates to support him and refute Ramirez's story- before the story with her accusations actually appeared in the New Yorker. They've been having trouble getting the FBI to talk to them about the issue, or to get the texts and their dates submitted to the investigation. Kavanaugh clearly stated under oath that he hadn't heard of this allegation until it appeared in the New Yorker Magazine. This is classic perjury. Just another lie he's told, but unlike his unbelievable explanations for his yearbook entries, this left a data trail.
Kerry Beecham says it possibly began as early as July. About the time that Dr. Ford was trying to get her accusation to be heard before Kavanaugh's nomination. Kavanaugh personally texted some of their mutual friends, which could be looked upon as obstruction of justice or witness tampering.
If Flake was being honest about not voting yes if hes caught lying, he will be sunk now. Thats a big "if" though
It is of course unfathomable to think that we even have to have a vote in the senate late this week regarding Kavanaugh after everything that has come out. I did however watch the SNL skit about the Kavanaugh hearing and it made me roll with laughter. (SNL had Matt Damon play Kavanaugh and it was a riot) ...having them do that also gives more of a spotlight to how ridiculous Kavanaugh acted and how crazy it is we have to even entertain this nominee.
I think what might "get" Kavanaugh in the FBI investigation is something he lied about that they can prove from his committee hearing. And it may even have to be about what Cindy posted here!
I believe that funny little skit may actually reach some people in a way the news doesn't. SNL affected peoples views about Sarah Palin in a way news outlets couldn't. The skit is on youtube and worth checking out if you are interested.
The nation’s largest coalition of Christian churches on Wednesday called for the withdrawal of Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination for the Supreme Court.
The National Council of Churches, which has membership from more than 40 denominations including most major Protestant and Eastern Orthodox denominations in the U.S., wrote in a statement on their website that they believe Kavanaugh has “disqualified himself from this lifetime appointment and must step aside immediately.”
They went on to mention specific examples exhibited during the hearing, bias, disrespect, telling falsehoods and so on during his testimony. Read their examples and complete statement ag:
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/409775-nat ional-council-of-churches-calls-for-kavanaughs-nomination-to
Thank you Michele B. for the information on the National Council of Churches. So many people have attempted to go to their website tonight to read the message directly, their site crashed and they have since posted the entire statement on Facebook.
The negative comments from people upset with the NCC is very upsetting. Vile. I may never understand why people can have such hate in their hearts.
I hope their message and that of all the law professors across the country can have some weight.
The following is from Law Professors around the country against the Kavanaugh confirmation.
The Senate Should Not Confirm Kavanaugh
Signed 1,000 plus law professors and counting
The following letter will be presented to the United States Senate on Oct. 4. It will be updated as more signatures are received.
Judicial temperament is one of the most important qualities of a judge. As the Congressional Research Service explains, a judge requires “a personality that is even-handed, unbiased, impartial, courteous yet firm, and dedicated to a process, not a result.” The concern for judicial temperament dates back to our founding; in Federalist 78, titled “Judges as Guardians of the Constitution,” Alexander Hamilton expressed the need for “the integrity and moderation of the judiciary.”
We are law professors who teach, research and write about the judicial institutions of this country. Many of us appear in state and federal court, and our work means that we will continue to do so, including before the United States Supreme Court. We regret that we feel compelled to write to you, our Senators, to provide our views that at the Senate hearings on Sept. 27, Judge Brett Kavanaugh displayed a lack of judicial temperament that would be disqualifying for any court, and certainly for elevation to the highest court of this land.
The question at issue was of course painful for anyone. But Judge Kavanaugh exhibited a lack of commitment to judicious inquiry. Instead of being open to the necessary search for accuracy, Judge Kavanaugh was repeatedly aggressive with questioners. Even in his prepared remarks, Judge Kavanaugh described the hearing as partisan, referring to it as “a calculated and orchestrated political hit,” rather than acknowledging the need for the Senate, faced with new information, to try to understand what had transpired. Instead of trying to sort out with reason and care the allegations that were raised, Judge Kavanaugh responded in an intemperate, inflammatory and partial manner, as he interrupted and, at times, was discourteous to senators.
As you know, under two statutes governing bias and recusal, judges must step aside if they are at risk of being perceived as or of being unfair. As Congress has previously put it, a judge or justice “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” These statutes are part of a myriad of legal commitments to the impartiality of the judiciary, which is the cornerstone of the courts.
We have differing views about the other qualifications of Judge Kavanaugh. But we are united, as professors of law and scholars of judicial institutions, in believing that he did not display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest court of our land.
Signed, with institutional affiliation listed for identification purposes only, by the following:
There professors and article can be found here:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/03/opinion/kavanaugh-law-professors-letter.html
When ever I see the letters from organizations which oppose this jerk I feel hope. THEN I remember who is the majority leader of the Senate. As a Kentuckian I can assure you MITCH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT ANYTHING BUT "The Agenda". He is an egotistical self serving bastard and he will get his way!