Will the House Impeach Kavanaugh?

This isn’t an idle question. I think Jerry Nadler has been thinking about impeaching Brett Kavanaugh since the Senate confirmed his nomination to the Supreme Court. And this was reported about five weeks ago:

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., and Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., who chairs the subcommittee on the courts, issued a letter to the National Archives and Records Administration seeking records related to Kavanaugh’s time as staff secretary and in the White House counsel’s office. Kavanaugh served in the White House from 2001 to 2006.

In particular, Nadler and Johnson are asking for all emails Kavanaugh sent or received as well as the “textual records contained in [his] office files.”

“In the coming year, the Supreme Court will again address important matters regarding civil rights, criminal justice, and immigration,” the two lawmakers wrote. “The Court may also review certain high-profile cases related to reproductive rights, the separation of powers, and the limits of executive authority — all topics within the jurisdiction of the House Judiciary Committee.”

Nadler and Johnson wrote that they are seeking the records under the Presidential Records Act. The law provides congressional committees access to records that “contain information that is needed for the conduct of [their] business and that is not otherwise available.”

Kavanaugh’s time in the Bush White House came up during the so-called Senate conformation hearints, but the Trump administration was able to keep most of the records of that time hidden.

Now there is new reporting in the New York Times that Kavanaugh’s history of alleged sexual assault is more extensive, and far better documented, than previously reported. And there are new accusations that Kavanaugh perjured himself to Congress.

The Saturday report retraced Kavanaugh’s confirmation process, detailing a fast-tracked FBI investigation failed to interrogate more than two dozen potential witnesses in Ramirez’s case, one that ultimately gave Republican senators enough cover to confirm Kavanaugh. It also publicly recounts allegations by Max Stier, CEO of the nonpartisan Washington, DC, nonprofit Center for Presidential Transition, who says he saw Kavanaugh push his penis into the hand of a female student at Yale during a separate incident that didn’t involve Ramirez. Stier talked to the FBI about his allegation, but they did not investigate the matter.

Kavanaugh has categorically denied engaging in any sexually inappropriate behavior, from Ramirez’s allegations to those of Christine Blasey Ford, who said he drunkenly assaulted her in high school. He’s also denied that he drank excessively (to the point of blacking out) in high school and college — claims that several of his classmates and friends have denied.

Democrats called for an investigation into Kavanaugh’s “truthfulness” during the confirmation process, but got nowhere. As new information — and another allegation — comes out, there have been renewed calls to reopen investigations into the Supreme Court justice.

Once the New York Times story came out, the Democratic candidates wasted little time calling for Kavanaugh’s impeachment. Amy Klobuchar said the confirmation process was a sham and that she wants the Department of Justice investigated for its role in withholding relevant documents.

The timing of the New York Times report is especially sweet, considering that the Department of Justice had just announce it was going to hang awards around the necks of the team that got Kavanaugh nominated.

The Justice Department will present one of its most prestigious awards to the lawyers who worked on the highly contentious Supreme Court nomination process of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh.

Next month, Attorney General William P. Barr will present the Attorney General’s Award for Distinguished Service to those who worked “to support the nomination” of the judge, according to an email reviewed by The New York Times.

All those people up for the award should be investigated as well.

Trump has been having a major twitter fit over this, of course, and thinks Kavanaugh should sue everybody accusing him of anything. I suspect Kavanaugh will not be doing that. There’s probably no hope of getting Kavanaugh removed from the court given the current Congress. However, the current Congress won’t be there forever.

It’s up to you, Congressman Nadler.

9 thoughts on “Will the House Impeach Kavanaugh?

  1. The Trump Assministration and Senate Repubs are basically an organized crime operation at this point, with Barr at the rotten nexus of covering for Trump's corruption.

  2. Impeach and convict every single judge confirmed without 2/3 majority, then run them past the Senate under the old rules and see what shakes out!

  3. No one who committed perjury to get a seat on the supreme court deserves to keep it.  I see no other way, but impeachment, to determine if Brett got his seat by criminal actions.  It seems our governmental institutions were compromised and impeded from proper investigation by corrupt political actions. 

    To allow a corrupt supreme court judge to continue in office is unconscionable and destroys the top level of the judicial system.  I see no need for further explanation, but for the record it goes by the same principal as the fox not being put in charge of the chicken house.  In this case there are victims, witnesses, and apparent perjury. Social Status and privilege  do not convey immunity from criminal activity, especially activity of this kind.  

    At present I will heed the moderate voice of Amy Klobuchar and support her call for impeachment and her judgement in this matter.  

  4. Correction, Amy Klobuchar has not voiced support specifically for impeachment but voiced continued opposition to his appointment.  Warren, Harris and Castro are on record according to the NYT as calling for impeachment.  

  5. I hate to be politically cynical but if impeachment moves too fast then Kavanaugh might be removed in plenty of time for Trump to name a replacement. Remove Kavanaugh before January 2020, it may change nothing. (Except removing a bad justice with the certainty of a new bad judge as a replacement.) 

    At times I'm very idealistic – other times very cynical. Re the USSC and the process under MoscowMitch, I'd play by the SAME rules as the Republicans until they adopt in writing a standard on nominating appointments which isn't a sham. I'm in favor of expanding the size of the USSC to unpack the majority which Conservatives achieved by ignoring Obama's nominee.

  6. Re Kavanaugh:
    The way to get him out of the SC is to complete two investigations; one of his sexual misconduct, which was long ago and statute-limited, but vividly scandalous; the other of his financial chicanery, which was recent, a disbarment offense, but MEGO for the public. Then, when ready, call K in for a frank private talk. Say: "We could disbar you and jail you for that $250,000 you mysteriously acquired; or you could resign 'to spend more time with your family' because of the sex scandal. Your choice."

    You see, the system doesn't take rape as seriously as it does swindling; and swindling can be verified by public records.

  7. paradoctor,

    A "DITTO) from me!!!!!

    SC Judge "Sir Imbibesalot" is a lying, drunken, male skank-wannabe.

    What all of these little pee-pee displays tell me, is that in college, and even before he could legally do it, Judge Imbibesalot couldn't get laid with a fistful of pardons in a women's prison!  (Or a men's one either, for that matter).

    Who would want to schtup this bozo?!?!?

Comments are closed.