Screengrab from https://youtu.be/Tsm1GPnlqmU
When you need prevarications to “prove” Kavanaugh’s unworthiness then you have no stance.
It has been a solid week already of Democrat showboating embarrassments from the Senate chambers during the confirmation hearing for Justice Brett Kavanaugh. It would possibly require a forklift dropping a pallet of grease paint in the Capitol Rotunda in order for this to become a bigger clown show.
While outshined by Corey Booker’s klieg light performance Kamala Harris and her hyperbolic accusations have been equally offensive. Praised wildly by many in the press for her supposed “gotcha” line of questioning aimed at Kavanaugh, Harris has been largely unchecked in creating false accusations. Many have praised her as a seasoned litigant who “cornered” the nominee in her question regarding a possible connection or conversation he had with a member of the legal team for President Trump.
At issue was her badgering questions were wholly open-ended and rife for interpretation, had Kavanaugh answered directly. On Wednesday, during a tension-filled eight-minute exchange, Senator Harris challenged Kavanagh with a query as to a discussion he may have had regarding the current Mueller investigation. While the judge may have been — or sounded at least — evasive, it was due to the broad scope she presented.
Here was her opener:
“Judge, have you ever discussed Special Counsel Mueller, or his investigation, with anyone?”
Has he “ever discussed” these subjects, with “anyone”?! Kavanaugh giving a “No” answer here would have been pulled out as a hard lie. Hell, tens of millions of Americans would probably qualify to the affirmative with that broad question. But had he said “Yes” it definitively that would have sent them down an accusatory rabbit hole. Kavanaugh rightly demanded clarity on the question, stating he had, of course, discussed it with colleagues.
He forced a more clarifying question from Harris, but one that was only slightly so:
“Have you ever discussed Mueller, or his investigation with anyone at the law firm of Kasowitz Benson Torres, the law firm founded by Marc Kasowitz, President Trump’s personal lawyer?”
Harris knew what she was doing here. By leaving things as broad as possible the minefield for Kavanaugh was equally as broad. Instead the judge continued to insist she clarify her questioning. The reason behind this was unintentionally provided by Washington Post reporter Carol Leonning, who said the law firm made a direct statement — that none of their staff spoke to Kavanaugh.
As Leonning herself asks, “How do they know…that none of their staff in 9 offices across the country spoke to Brett Kavanaugh?” And that is precisely why Kavanaugh could/would not answer specifically. Harris asking of “anyone at the law firm” could entail hundreds of employees across the country. Even as Harris said, “I’m asking you a very direct question; yes, or no?”, she knew full well she was being anything but direct.
This line of questioning continued on Thursday but there was a defined alteration, and the response was likewise altered. Kamala opened with, “I will ask you again, and for the last time. Have you ever been part of a conversation with lawyers at the firm of Kasowitz Benson Torres about Special Counsel Mueller or his investigation?” By narrowing the scope down to simply “lawyers” Kavanaugh could then answer directly: “No”, he replied, and they moved on. Nothing important was arrived at.
Despite two days of loggerheads and nothing truly gleaned from the interrogation Harris has been praised by the media. This is the same media that has refused to call out this same Senator on her multiple misstatements and outright lies regarding a key courtroom judgement.
Kamala Harris is a staunch abortion rights activist, dating back to her days as California Attorney General. She would annually pocket tens of thousands in donations from Planned Parenthood, but more striking than that she actually partnered with the organization when crafting legislation in California regarding PPFA.
After undercover videos were released showing executives from the group breaking federal laws Harris sought to rewrite privacy laws in her state as a means of protecting the group from further legal snares. Her office actually submitted crafted bills to the lawyers from Planned Parenthood for them to approve of language and supply other notes, prior to being sent to the legislature. Therefore there is no surprise she would focus on Kavanaugh’s abortion stance.
In her crosshairs is a key decision made about one year ago, the famed case of an illegal immigrant Jane Doe, who was underage and desired to get an abortion. The story was the DOJ fought releasing her from a holding facility to get the abortion as she was part of the throng of minors who arrive here unescorted. Without parental supervision, the State would not act as guardian. The ACLU fought for her “rights” to have the abortion performed.
It led to the court case Garza vs. Hargan, and Planned Parenthood took the PR reins on delivering misinformation about the case, and Kavanaugh. Senator Harris has been all too willing to forward the slander on the judge. The claim is Kavanaugh wanted to block the abortion, that he was so militant he ignored laws, and that his extreme position was overruled by a full court on which he was a lone dissenter.
Said Harris: “As recently as last year, he disregarded Supreme Court precedent and opposed the healthcare rights of a vulnerable young woman. That ruling was overturned by a sitting of all the judges on his court.” The facts reveal the layers of lies she has spewed about this case, and this underscores the desperation of Harris and the Democrats on this committee.
Kavanaugh was not acting as a blind ideologue while on the judges’ panel ruling on the case. He was following the letter of the law, and in fact the government had sought and found, a proper sponsor for the Jane Doe. As Kavaugh wrote “So long as the process of securing a sponsor to whom the minor is released occurs expeditiously,” which would eliminate the undue burden on the girl, as had been argued. This was when the ACLU stepped in and appealed the full court to try the case. Except the full judges team never heard arguments, they simply overruled the panel’s decision
That full court ruled to have the girl released. In his dissent, in which other judges joined him, Kavanaugh mentioned his concern over “a new right for unlawful immigrant minors in U.S. Government detention to obtain an immediate abortion on demand, thereby barring any Government efforts to expeditiously transfer the minors to their immigration sponsors before they make that momentous life decision.” As he detailed it is, “radically inconsistent with 40 years of Supreme Court precedent.”
He was seeking a path for the minor to be released to sponsors in a quick fashion, for her sake, while adhering to the law and the Constitution. This is specifically what you want from a potential Justice, and is not the extremist Senator Harris is desperate to label on Kavanaugh. So he was not acting as an ideologue, was not ignoring the laws, and was not acting alone. But there is one additional lie Harris is guilty of here – the sin of omission.
What Harris and others never detail is that the Garza v. Hagan case was moved to the Supreme Court. The ACLU, probably realizing the shaky legal ground they were on, moved to get the Jane Doe to an abortion clinic before the government’s appeal was heard by the highest court. However, SCOTUS did end up vacating that full court’s decision – by a unanimous vote. This means the current makeup of The Court backed up Kavanaugh’s initial ruling on the law.
This is the man the Democrats are desperate to paint as an extremist. He has proven to adhere to the law, and was fully vindicated by the Supreme Court. And the Democrats have been proven to be liars.