WATCH LIVE: Day 3 of Brett Kavanaugh Senate Confirmation Hearings
How many times will protesters interrupt the senators and Kavanaugh?
Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh faces the Senate Judiciary Committee for the third day on Thursday. The hearing starts at 9:30AM ET.
Wednesday lasted 12 hours, but today should be a little shorter since senators only get 20 minutes to ask questions. Yet I expect many interruptions from protesters.
General Observations
Protesters are all over Grassley’s office.
Day three of Brett Kavanaugh’s #SCOTUS confirmation hearing is set to begin in about 15 minutes. Meanwhile, protesters have taken over Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley’s office pic.twitter.com/EgI51yBAdN
— Zoe Tillman (@ZoeTillman) September 6, 2018
Grassley has started the hearing and is giving a speech about the release of the documents. He has said the Democrats “only have themselves to blame if they didn’t get the documents they wanted.” He is talking about how long it takes to get the documents due to redactions, but that those who want the documents will get them.
Whitehouse said that since he doesn’t consider this nomination and hearing as legitimate then the rules don’t apply to him.
Documents
So yes, the hearing has kicked off with a debate over the documents. Anyone want to guess when we finally get to the questioning of Kavanaugh?
Booker is complaining about the process of getting confidential documents. He also wants to know why some are kept confidential when they don’t have sensitive information or anything to do with national security.
Booker also said he will turn an email public that is confidential and will accept the consequences. The email is about racial profiling.
Democratic Sen. Cory Booker says he is “knowingly violating the rules” and will release a document labeled “committee confidential” on racial profiling, one that he asked Judge Brett Kavanaugh about last night https://t.co/qW8JVmcG0q pic.twitter.com/WpBZUhkUle
— CNN (@CNN) September 6, 2018
Cory Booker has released the documents:
These are the 4 documents marked committee confidential that I brought up in my questioning of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh last night –> https://t.co/2RZkY2FS9a
— Cory Booker (@CoryBooker) September 6, 2018
Sen. Cory Booker’s BOMBELL:
Brett Kavanaugh didn’t want to racially profile people after 9/11.
Bravo, Spartacus.https://t.co/gNfANpx6u6 pic.twitter.com/wyU8AJbQMB
— Jason Howerton (@jason_howerton) September 6, 2018
Roe vs. Wade
Feinstein immediately asked about Roe vs Wade. As you know the NYT dropped an article with an old Kavanaugh email wondering if Roe was settled law:
Feinstein asks Kavanaugh about the Roe emails and “settled law.”
Kavanaugh: “That draft letter was referring to the views of legal scholars … it was overstating something about legal scholars. I’m always concerned about accuracy … Roe v. Wade is an important precedent”
— Burgess Everett (@burgessev) September 6, 2018
Orrin Hatch also brought up the email and Kavanaugh repeated that he was just trying to be as accurate as he can about what legal scholars think.
Jason Howerton noted on Twitter that he cannot believe Feinstein keeps asking Kavanaugh about his feelings on such subjects. I agree:
It’s still unbelievable to me that people like Feinstein are still asking about Kavanaugh’s PERSONAL opinions, which is NOT how judges make decisions. Plus, it’s well established that judicial nominees don’t share opinion like that and tarnish their independence.
— Jason Howerton (@jason_howerton) September 6, 2018
SenGraham asks #Kavanaugh – are there any words in the Constitution about abortion? What are the limits on the ability of any court to find a “penumbra of rights” for any situation? (law school drinking game – don’t get it twisted – I was drinking Ben&Jerrys)
— Shannon Bream (@ShannonBream) September 6, 2018
Stolen Emails
Leahy jumps right into the subject he brought up yesterday about stolen emails during the Bush administration. Leahy has brought up documents that were declassified late last night.
Leahy points to several emails, saying they should have raised red flags for Kavanaugh that information was stolen, including one email with the subject line “spying” pic.twitter.com/mSt8SABCbk
— Kimberly Robinson (@KimberlyRobinsn) September 6, 2018
Graham asked Kavanaugh more questions. Kavanaugh insists he did not encourage people to steal documents nor did he know that he had stolen property.
Executive Protection
The ever so wonderful (sarcasm) Sheldon Whitehouse begins his questioning about protecting the president. He’s basically arguing that Kavanaugh should recuse himself if SCOTUS receives a case against Trump.
We're back at #KavanaughHearings. Sen. Whitehouse is up.
He asks Kavanaugh to release any reporters from confidentially concerns relating to what Kavanaugh may have told them during Starr investigation.
Kavanaugh says no… confidentiality belongs to Ken Starr.
— Kimberly Robinson (@KimberlyRobinsn) September 6, 2018
Whitehouse pressing Kavanaugh about statements he made about the Clinton administration running "smear campaign" against Starr investigation that would "make Nixon blush."
Kavanaugh anticipates where this is going… Trump & Mueller. Said he won't talk about current events.
— Kimberly Robinson (@KimberlyRobinsn) September 6, 2018
Kavanaugh tells Coons that he will not hypothetically apply US vs. Nixon. That case said the president has to produce subpoena recordings and documents. Kavanaugh has called it one of the best SCOTUS decisions in history.
Jeff Flake asked Kavanaugh about judges’ and their political and religious beliefs:
“We don’t sit in separate caucus rooms, we don’t sit on sides of an aisle, we are not Republican judges or Democratic judges. We are independent, United States judges. And so to, with respect to religious beliefs as I have written, we are all equally American no matter what religion we are or if we have no religion at all. And so, to as judges, we are all equally United States judges no matter what religion we are. And we see that right in the text of the Constitution,” Kavanaugh said.
Brett Kavanaugh on whether the Constitution prohibits restrictions on the President’s ability to fire a special prosecutor: “I follow the precedent. The precedent of the Supreme Court in the US v. Nixon case did apply that regulation” https://t.co/94CrulIaLq pic.twitter.com/GiOQu1N3zE
— CNN (@CNN) September 6, 2018
Cory Booker
The New Jersey senator is campaigning again trying to make points out of nothing that prove that Kavanaugh will not be independent as he claims he will be.
Booker is trying to goad Kavanaugh to get political, even though Kavanaugh said that sitting judges do not do this. Kavanaugh has said before that he has not voted because it gets in the way of his independence. Booker kept trying to make Kavanaugh make a remark about Trump’s character.
He won't even let Kavanaugh answer. I already know why Kavanaugh won't answer the way Booker wants.
— Kaitain ???????? (@Kaitain_FL) September 6, 2018
In other words, Booker just wants to hear himself speak and campaign for 2020.
#Kavanaugh says – my only loyalty is to the Constitution – I've made that clear
— Shannon Bream (@ShannonBream) September 6, 2018
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Something that is suppose to be free to access the government hearing have people paid to attend and disrupt. To bad someone could not sue them for denying access to the government. Even more so, if it can be linked to Schumer.
Doubt they’re paid, gives ‘em too much credit. Plenty of nutbag lefties with nothing better to do.
They were seen to have been paid: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/09/04/texas_doctor_i_saw_people_handing_out_cash_to_protesters_in_the_line_for_kavanaugh_hearing.html
People in line saw that they got paid.
Here is a funny clip from Fox.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5831481853001/?#sp=show-clips
Why? It’s not like they haven’t been caught doing this dozens of times before.
thehill.com/homenews/administration/365068-exclusive-prominent-lawyer-sought-donor-cash-for-two-trump-accusers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY&t=4s
All I can think is who are the idiots who have elected these buffoons? Oh yeah, it’s us.
Mary: Thanks for watching this so I don’t have to.
Amen to this and I second it!
I am so mad. Bonkers, Blumbutt and WhineyHouse are such losers. This is so much BS.
Me too. Just remember that at the end of this nonsense we are seating a Justice who believes in the Constitution.
The real fight begins when Ginsberg takes a spill down the stairs.
It seems there is really very little daylight between the Democrats on the committee, and the Democrats orchestrating the disruptions. Those Dems who are silent are just as guilty. All are pretty much trash. If nothing else, Trump has ‘outed’ the whole lot of them.
What a Dem. meltdown.! Hopefully this gets us out to vote.
When Booker ‘knowing violates the rules of the committee’ the chairman should have him immediately removed from his post and send word to the Minority leader that a replacement is needed, and that the hearing will continue regardless.
I just went and read through those documents that Booker released, and in every single one regarding race, Kavanaugh is arguing explicitly in favor of race-neutral government policies, and that it is against the Constitution for Government policies to specifically favor one race over another.
And that, to Cory Booker, is evidence of “Racism”.
Access to the viewing gallery requires a signed pass. Here is an extract from http://www.senate.gov: “Then as now, each gallery pass requires the “signature” of a senator or officer of the Senate. At one time, it was not uncommon for a senator to personally sign a gallery pass, but eventually the task became overwhelming and “signatures” were increasingly executed with the aid of a rubber stamp or a mechanical device such as an autopen.”
So pretty clear that these disrupters are “in collusion” with Senators and their staff.
Question: Why doesn’t the Senate Leader do something to maintain order and decorum at the hearing?
I hope that they are keeping track of which Senators’ offices stamped the invites of the disruptors who had to be removed — and that they will publicly announce the totals at the end of the hearing.
Each pass is somehow issued by a Senator? Why then isn’t that Senator held accountable somehow for allowing miscreants into the galley? Maybe if they had some actual skin in the game it wouldn’t happen..
So… Senator Booker violated the Senate rules, and he’s said publicly that he did so knowingly.
Question: Will he be censured or rebuked in any way?
Question: Will he be censured or rebuked in any way?
Funny joke, clintack. You know good and well that would be racist. To even pose such a question is racist. Good grief, even replying to your question is racist.
It was just grandstanding. He knew the documents were approved for release he is just trying to get a clip for his presidential campaign adds.
He was not grandstanding. You see, in his own eyes, he was being very brave like a famous slave from long ago. As a 21st century democrat plantation slave he is leading a revolt against the plantation………well not exactly, not against the plantation. This brave slave is so brainwashed he is leading a revolt against those who would set him free….or something.
Oh never mind! He was grandstanding.
LMAO, I thought you were doing pretty good there for a minute! HEHE!
The guilty also include Republicans – the Dems wouldn’t play intimidation and delay tactics if the GOP hadn’t rewarded those tactics in the past by rolling over.
If you promote spineless “civility” over results, the last 3 days can be laid at your feet.
Hold the vote tomorrow, please.
They should just have Bike Lock Boy brain Kavanaugh over the head and be done with this.
You guys remember him? I was told to stand down, that he was awaiting Justice. Well… four felony counts and not a day in jail. Probation.
So yeah. They should just beat Kavanaugh over the head till he is comatose. Because apparently you can get away with ambushing Conservatives with lethal force in this country.
*…charged with four counts of felony assault with a deadly weapon, causing great bodily injury, has taken a deal resulting in three years of probation for an attack at a Berkeley protest last year, court records reveal.”
“Clanton entered a “no contest” plea Wednesday to one misdemeanor battery charge. The felony charges against him were dismissed, and an allegation that he had caused serious bodily injury was stricken. A misdemeanor charge that Clanton wore a mask during the commission of the crime also was dropped.”
https://www.berkeleyside.com/2018/08/08/eric-clanton-takes-3-year-probation-deal-in-berkeley-rally-bike-lock-assault-case
So how are we handling this. Aw shucks?
Before he had his day in court, I asked what will it take for us to mount up. I was rightfully chastened. Told to let Justice take it’s course. Now that I have, now that those of you who admonished me have been proven wrong, I think it’s only fair that you revisit my questions.
Where is the red line? Does it even exist? Will you quote the Rule of Law as your neighbors are beat to death for exercising Free Speech? Is your position based on Principle or Cowardice?
Perhaps the DoJ should consider a civil rights prosecution? The assault was clearly intended to suppress the free speech and assembly rights of the opposition.
I’d like to contact the prosecutor and get and explanation of what happened. I’m a former Marine – I can hit center mass at 500 yards and build IEDs in my sleep. Would be a good thing if a rational explanation could be presented to stop my radicalization in it’s tracks.
Anyone know how to reach him?
What is the meaning of the clasped hands on the woman behind the judge? What is the meaning of her displaying her wedding ring? I’m sure there’s a nefarious meaning in the minds of the overheated left. Or perhaps 4Chan can come up with something.
She is triggering a select group of SJWs by showing that heterosexual marriage is alive and well in this country.
How do you know her spouse is a man?
Because I can read.
Hey, guys, do you know what the protesters at this hearing are saying right now about Donald Trump?
They say he wants to make protesting illegal.
I got this email from the Women’s March (Linda Sarsour’s group), quoted in full
from Rachel Carmona, Women’s March
Yesterday President Trump suggested that protesting should be illegal.
His message is clear: In Trump’s America, peaceful protest will be criminalized.
Let Women’s March be equally clear: This is also women’s America. And in our America, we defend our constitutionally protected rights.
Nothing threatens Trump more than women who disobey. Can you give $10 a month to protect our rights from the men in power who are trying to take them away?
Women’s March and Center for Popular Democracy Action leaders and members representing 26 states, led interruptions of the hearings for anti-woman Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. More than 75 women were arrested yesterday for voicing their dissent, and over 30 have been arrested so far during today’s hearings.
We won’t be scared into silence. We will keep exercising our constitutional rights for as long as we can. Will you give $10 a month today to fund the resistance?
Women’s March will always be on the side of the people to make sure all our voices are heard in the democratic process. We will vote, we will march, we will rally, and we will disobey until this administration ceases its assault on our constitutional and human rights.
In community,
Rachel
This is what these nuts are telling themselves. If I believed their nonsense, I would be all wound up, too, but I know better. I know that they are associated with Islamists via Linda Sarsour, who has been one of their prominent speakers, and who was arrested on the first day of the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing.
She doesn’t have any problem telling horrendous lies, and because they run with her, they don’t have any problem with the notion of mutilating women so they can’t enjoy sex. How this could possibly square with their purported mission to speak on behalf of women’s rights is beyond me.
Sasse owns it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJK2JveCAbI
But I am sure that the NYT sees it a racist, homophobic, and misogynistic.
Sorry if this is a dumb question BUT…
Is it possible in any circumstance where there is a meeting, hearing, presentation, etc., a gathering of the public, where you could have the attendees ONLY be able to enter IF they sign a document granting you the ability to tase disruptors and remove them by force?
The point is to place a high price on being a dick AND protect yourself from any liability.
If not this, what options would be available to put a meaningful price on disruptors?