Al Franken Has Some Questions For Brett Kavanaugh-- File Under "If Only"

Are we better off that that that effing hypocritical idiot Kirsten Gillibrand got her scalp by pushing Al Franken out of the Senate? Nancy Pelosi didn't say boo-- nor did Gillibrand fro that matter-- when it came out that Tony Cárdenas, (D-CA) had far, far more serious sex allegations lodged against him by a girl who was 16 when he raped her. He's still in Congress, still laundering corporate bribes into the Congressional Hispanic Caucus' BOLD PAC. And Franken? On the sidelines. Thanks a lot, Senator Gillibrand.

Earlier today, Franken took to Facebook to suggest what his former colleagues should ask Trumpist judge Brett Kavanaugh when they consider confirming Putin's illegitimate "president's" latest nominee. Franken has 25 specific, strategic questions. Trump owes Gillibrand big-time that Franken won't have the opportunity to be cross-examining Kavanaugh with them. The Democrats on the Judiciary Committee are a mixed bag, from the conservative and comatose, like ranking member Dianne Feinstein and Chris Coons (D-DE) to a couple of live wires like Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Kamala Harris (D-CA). None of them is a substitute for Franken but... we'll see if any of them land any punches.

When Judge Brett Kavanaugh appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senators will have an opportunity to examine his record, his judicial philosophy, and his qualifications for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.

I wish I could be there. Because I have some questions I’d love to see him answer.

1. Judge Kavanaugh, welcome. I’d like to start with a series of yes or no questions. The first one is a gimme. Do you think it’s proper for judges to make determinations based on their ideological preconceptions or their personal biases?

He’ll say no, of course.

2. Good. Would you agree that judges should make determinations based on their understanding of the facts?

3. And would you agree that it’s important for a judge to obtain a full and fair understanding of the facts before making a determination?

This is all pretty standard stuff. Then, however, I’d turn to an issue that’s received a bit of attention-- but not nearly enough.

4. When you were introduced by President Trump, you spoke to the American people for the very first time as a nominee for the Supreme Court. That is a very important moment in this process, wouldn’t you agree?

5. And one of the very first things that came out of your mouth as a nominee for the Supreme Court was the following assertion: “No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination.” Did I quote you correctly?

This claim, of course, was not just false, but ridiculous. The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake (a Minnesota native) called it “a thoroughly inauspicious way to begin your application to the nation’s highest court, where you will be deciding the merits of the country’s most important legal and factual claims.”

It would be only fair to give Kavanaugh a chance to retract that weirdly specific bit of bullshit.

6. Do you stand by those words today? Yes or no?

If he says that he doesn’t, I’d skip down to Question 22. But, if he won’t take it back, I’d want to pin him down.

7. I just want to be clear. You are under oath today, correct?

8. So, today, you are telling the American people-- under oath-- that it is your determination that “[n]o president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination.”

9. And that determination-- it wouldn’t be based on your ideological preconceptions, would it?

10. And it’s not based on any personal bias, is it?

11. No, of course not. That would be improper. Instead, it is based on your understanding of the facts, right?

12. Was it a “full and fair” understanding of the facts?

Again, if he decided here to fold his hand and admit that he was full of it, I’d skip down to Question 22. But if not, I’d continue with…

13. Great. Judge Kavanaugh, are you aware that there have been 162 nominations to the Supreme Court over the past 229 years?

14. And do you have a full and fair understanding of the circumstances surrounding each nomination?

Of course he doesn’t.

15. Of course you don’t. So, in actuality, your statement at that press conference did not reflect a full and fair understanding of the facts-- isn’t that right?

16. This was one of the very first public statements you made to the American people as a nominee for the Supreme Court. A factual assertion you have repeated here under oath. And it did not meet your standard for how a judge should make determinations about issues of national importance.

17. Let me ask you about some widely-reported facts. Are you aware of the widely-reported fact that President Trump selected you from a list of 25 jurists provided by the conservative Federalist Society?

18. Are you aware of any other case in which a President has selected a nominee from a list provided to him by a partisan advocacy group?

19. Are you aware of the widely-reported fact that President Trump spent just two weeks mulling over his selection-- whereas, for example, President Obama spent roughly a month before making each of his two Supreme Court nominations?

20. Let me ask you this. Are you aware of any facts that support your assertion that-- and I’ll quote it again--“No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination”?

21. And yet, you still believe that your assertion was based on a full and fair understanding of the facts?

Then I’d try to sum it up.

22. Judge Kavanaugh, do you believe that intellectual honesty and a scrupulous adherence to the facts are important characteristics in a Supreme Court Justice?

23: And would you say that you displayed those characteristics to your own satisfaction when you made in your very first public remarks (and reiterated here today under oath) your assertion that, “No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination?”

By the way: Once I had him pinned down on his ridiculous lie, I’d ask where it came from.

24: Let me ask you about something else. Did President Trump, or anyone in his administration, have any input on your remarks at that press conference?

25: Did President Trump, or anyone in his administration, instruct, ask, or suggest that you make that assertion?

I know this might seem like a long chase. Senators have a lot of ground they want to cover in these hearings: health care, choice, net neutrality, and a long list of incredibly important issues on which Kavanaugh has been, and would continue to be, terrible. After all, he was chosen through a shoddy, disgraceful process overseen by the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation.

And, of course, Kavanaugh is a smart guy. He and his team no doubt know that his easily provable lie is a potential problem, and I’m sure they’re workshopping answers at this very moment.

But pinning him down on this is important, for a couple of reasons.

First of all, it was exactly the kind of lie that has been plaguing our discourse for a generation, the kind that has become prevalent under the Trump administration. It’s just a totally made-up assertion that is exactly the opposite of the truth, flowing out of the mouth of a committed partisan who doesn’t care that it’s false. And if you’re sick of people doing that and getting away with it, at some point someone is going to have to start using a prominent stage to bust these lies. If they go unchallenged, then why would any of these guys stop lying, ever?

More to the point: This episode is a perfect illustration of what the conservative movement has been doing to the Supreme Court nomination and confirmation process specifically, and the judicial system generally, for a generation now.

In theory, judges are supposed to be above partisan politics. They don’t make law, they interpret it. They don’t create the strike zone, they just call balls and strikes. You know the routine.

The truth is, for the last generation, conservatives have politicized the Court, and the courts. Kavanaugh is the very model of a young, arch-conservative judge who has been groomed for moments like this one precisely because conservative activists know that he will issue expansive, activist rulings to further their agenda. He has spent his whole career carefully cultivating a reputation as a serious and thoughtful legal scholar-- but he wouldn’t have been on that list if he weren’t committed to the right-wing cause.

That’s why it’s critical to recognize that the very first thing he did as a Supreme Court nominee was to parrot a false, partisan talking point. Of course that’s what he did. Advancing the goals of the Republican Party and the conservative movement is what he’s there to do.

When the Kavanaugh nomination was announced, I saw a lot of statements from Senators saying they looked forward to carefully evaluating his credentials and asking him questions about his judicial philosophy. But anyone who ignores the obvious fact that this nomination, and the judicial nomination process in general, has become a partisan exercise for Republicans is just playing along with the farce.

Instead, we ought to be having a real conversation about what conservatives have done to the principle of judicial independence-- and what progressives can do to correct it. I can think of no better example of the problem than Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination and the bizarre lie he uttered moments after it was made official. And I can think of no better opportunity to start turning the tide than Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing-- even if it means going down a rabbit hole for a few uncomfortable minutes.

If I remember correctly, Gillibrand was a corporate attorney before she got into Congress. I wonder if she has any questions she'd like to ask Judge Kavanaugh. I doubt it.

I'm Wondering How Obama, Who Has Now Established That He's Nothing But "Better Than Bush," Will Tackle Immigration Reform

The only real post-partisanship will fit right in

I've been afraid to let myself think this but I knew it in my bones: Obama's one of them, not one of us. "But he's better than Bush." So? Mr. Hankey is better than George Bush. An embryonic stem cell is better than George Bush. Bush is certainly the worst thing that's happened to this country politically since his ideological antecedents-- Jefferson Davis, Alexander Stephen's, Leroy Pope Walker, Stephen Mallory, Christopher Memminger, Judah Benjamin, John Reagan, Robert Toombs, John Breckinridge, et al-- led a secessionist movement to preserve slavery, instigating a catastrophic civil war. Why not say Obama is better than them? He certainly is. But so what?

If Personnel is Policy, we had to have had a good idea what Obama was going to be as soon as he named Rahm Emanuel his chief of staff and started appointing a gaggle of corrupt corporate lackeys, tax scofflaws, and Clinton Administration retreads to the top posts in his government. Democrats hate to say it-- as though by doing so we give ground to rightists-- but, in all truth, Bill Clinton will go down as one of the worst presidents in ever... not as bad as Bush, of course, but possibly worse than Reagan or even Nixon. It's hard to imagine how America will ever wind up with someone better than any of them. Obama's only been in office for two weeks and he's already letting the almost universally discredited Republicans call the shots. It's going to be all downhill from here. This nation is a captive of what Dwight Eisenhower warned us-- and worse. Watch him:



I think he may have been the last president to have had such a radical thought, or at least one he shared with the American people. I still have some hopes that Obama could possibly make things a little better for working families. I'm sure he'd like to, as long as he doesn't rock the boat too much. None of our political class wants to rock the boat too much. When I meet one who doesn't mind-- a Carol Shea-Porter or an Alan Grayson or a Donna Edwards-- I'm in awe. None of them are looking for a revolving door that takes them to the riches of the multibillion dollar lobbying industry (organized looting of the taxpayers). But they are an increasingly endangered species. Several years ago a study reported by Thomas Frank found that 43% of ex-members of Congress went to work in this disgraceful way. The percentage is much higher now.

Saturday's NY Times carried an editorial regarding New York's newly appointed-- what a shameful anachronism that concept is-- senator, Blue Dog Kirsten Gillibrand. They wonder aloud if she "can she represent a constituency beyond the narrow politics of her district, where she has been a bullet-headed opponent of gun control, proudly basking in the extremist affections of the National Rifle Association."

It’s not that Ms. Gillibrand is never willing to step out on a limb as a Democrat from a rural, Republican district. She has been a stout defender of women’s rights. And there was the speed, startling to say the least, with which she came around to embrace gay marriage.

Gay marriage is a nonstarter even among liberal Democrats like Hillary Rodham Clinton and Charles Schumer, but it is firmly supported by the one person whose vote Ms. Gillibrand needed to win her Senate seat: Governor Paterson.

Hmmm. There’s flexibility, and then there is rootlessness. We doubt New Yorkers want to send someone to Washington carrying a bag of random principles determined mostly by constituents’ angry phone calls and her patron’s personal priorities.

Ms. Gillibrand has pledged herself to studying the issues to better represent all of New York. She should start with immigration. New York is huge; it contains multitudes, including millions of newcomers who perpetually renew it. It is Hempstead and Elmira, Watertown and Montauk. And it is New York City: the glory of the No. 7 subway, the Statue of Liberty, Ellis Island and its 21st-century counterpart, Kennedy International Airport.

Ms. Gillibrand’s House votes on immigration amounted to a repudiation of New York’s special gift to America. She allied herself solidly with expulsionist Republicans, who reject assimilation in favor of locking down the border, deporting 12 million illegal immigrants and enshrining English as America’s one true tongue. She has favored enforcement rigidity over common sense; she was one of the first to denounce former Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s well-meaning effort to make sure illegal immigrants drive with licenses and insurance.

Ms. Gillibrand has not shown that she understands the ineffectiveness and moral bankruptcy of enforcement-only schemes. To take one example: The SAVE Act, which she co-sponsored [with vicious, reactionary xenophobes Heath Shuler and Tom Tancredo], was all about border fencing and requiring everyone in America to prove legal status before being allowed to work. Nothing in it required or allowed immigrants to come forward and legalize. It was meant to seem tough, but was actually a weak reassertion of the status quo, in which undocumented immigrants are denied hope of legal status while the government tries to make them so miserable that they go home. That is a recipe for creating and exploiting a cheap, docile underclass.

Ms. Gillibrand does understand that the country needs to increase and streamline legal immigration. But defending immigration should be an absolute minimum qualification for a political leader from this state. New Yorkers should expect much more.

Today's Times features a story by Dan Frosch, Paying Taxes, And Fearing Deportation which talks about the plight of immigrants without mentioning Gillibrand, Shuler and Tancredo. It struck a very personal chord in me because I too was once an undocumented immigrant, living and working (and paying taxes) in another country. I was an American citizen but my conscience didn't allow me to live in the U.S. while it was slaughtering innocent men, women and children in a war of unprovoked aggression in Vietnam. I settled in Holland and, ironically, wound up working for the Dutch government. It wasn't legal. But unlike the racist regime in Weld County, Colorado, no one ever tried to throw me or any of the thousands of war resisters out of the Netherlands. I worked. I paid my taxes. Eventually Nixon was being impeached and I moved home. Sometimes I wonder if I can collect anything for those taxes I paid in Amsterdam. Many Hispanic immigrants in this country never get a dime from what they pay into the system.

The campaign is causing concern at the I.R.S., which says illegal immigrants paid almost $50 billion in taxes from 1996 to 2003, and among immigrants’ rights groups, which call the operation a thinly disguised attempt to root out illegal immigrants.

“For years, they said immigrants don’t pay taxes and are a burden on our system,” said Julie Gonzales, the political coordinator for the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition.

Late last Monday, the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado filed a lawsuit in State District Court here arguing that by seizing and retaining confidential tax information, the Weld County authorities had violated privacy rights of thousands of taxpayers.

“If the sheriff and the D.A. can comb through thousands of records in a tax preparer’s office on the theory that some of their clients are doing something wrong, then none of our confidential information is safe,” said Mark Silverstein, the legal director for the group.

Where I went to school we learned about the pride all American feel that immigrants have built America into a vibrant and exemplary society, much of its strength resting in its diversity. I guess they don't teach that anymore. Or maybe they never did in backward parts of the country from when these xenophobic notions spring.

And, of course, as long as we got off onto a tangent about immigration, I need to mention that the evils of xenophobia are, ironically, quite Globalized. This weekend the London Times reported on a bizarre kind of xenophobia breaking out all over Northern Italy. Silvio Berlusconi's neo-fascist government is encouraging a campaign against... ethnic foods-- gastronomic racism and culinary ethnic cleansing!

Luca Zaia, the Minister of Agriculture and a member of the Northern League from the Veneto region, applauded the authorities in Lucca and Milan for cracking down on nonItalian food. “We stand for tradition and the safeguarding of our culture,” he said.

Mr Zaia said that those ethnic restaurants allowed to operate “whether they serve kebabs, sushi or Chinese food” should “stop importing container loads of meat and fish from who knows where” and use only Italian ingredients.

Asked if he had ever eaten a kebab, Mr Zaia said: “No-- and I defy anyone to prove the contrary. I prefer the dishes of my native Veneto. I even refuse to eat pineapple.”

Mehmet Karatut, who owns one of four kebab shops in Lucca, said that he used Italian meat only.

Davide Boni, a councillor in Milan for the Northern League, which also opposes the building of mosques in Italian cities, said that kebab shop owners were prepared to work long hours, which was unfair competition.

...Vittorio Castellani, a celebrity chef, said: “There is no dish on Earth that does not come from mixing techniques, products and tastes from cultures that have met and mingled over time.”

He said that many dishes thought of as Italian were, in fact, imported. The San Marzano tomato, a staple ingredient of Italian pasta sauces, was a gift from Peru to the Kingdom of Naples in the 18th century. Even spaghetti, it is thought, was brought back from China by Marco Polo, and oranges and lemons came from the Arab world.

Mr Castellani said that the ban reflected growing intolerance and xenophobia in Italy. It was also a blow to immigrants who make a living by selling ethnic food, which is popular because of its low cost. There are 668 ethnic restaurants in Milan, a rise of nearly 30 per cent in one year.

Although they are targeting McDonald's as well as kebab shops, French restaurants are excluded. They haven't figured out what to do about Sicilian cuisine since it is influenced by Arab cooking. Maybe they should ask Senator Kirsten Gillibrand.

GOP DEMANDS DEMOCRATS GIVE BACK THE MONEY SPITZER DONATED... LET'S LOOK AT VITTER'S, DOOLITTLE'S, STEVENS' AND SOME OTHER REPUBLICROOKS' CONTRIBUTIONS

Kirsten Gillibrand, not Heather Wilson or Susan Collins

I was skimming CongressDaily last this afternoon and I noticed a small article about Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and how she donated the two grand Eliot Spitzer had contributed to her re-election campaign to Catholic Charities of Saratoga, Warren and Washington Counties. Whatever. But then I saw something that interested me. "The Republican National Congressional Committee called on several New York Democrats, including Gillibrand, to return campaign contributions from Spitzer, who was linked by prosecutors to a prostitution ring this week."

I decided to do a little snooping around and see how many Republicans had returned the PAC money donated to their campaigns from some of the more notorious Republican crooks and perverts. Larry's Craig pleaded guilty after trying to have sex with a policeman in a public toilet and his appeal was rejected. His PAC is obviously a subterfuge for high living and of the $105,000 he collected in the current cycle, most of it went to catering ($65,472) and "consultants" ($41,617). But he did contribute $2,500 each to Susan Collins (R-ME), Norm Coleman (R-MN) and Pete Domenici (R-NM), none of whom returned a cent.

OK, what about David Vitter's Louisiana Diaper Boy PAC? (Just kidding; his personal slush fund that spends almost all its income on dinners and Saints tickers is called the Louisiana Reform PAC.) Remember, Vitter admitted to the same crime as Spitzer, employing a prostitute. But neither Mitch McConnell (R-KY) nor Bobby Jindal (R-LA) returned the money. That's especially odd because McConnell did return the contribution from another crooked Republican, Ted Stevens (R-AK). Stevens' Northern Lights PAC collected almost a quarter million dollars so far this cycle and he's been giving out big chunks to his colleagues. Several returned the tainted money (McConnell, Robert Bennett and Orrin Hatch. But most Republicans didn't return a cent. Stevens' home and office were raided by the FBI and he has been named in open court as the man behind the biggest corruption scandal in the history of Alaska. But John Sununu (R-NH) is holding on to his $7,500 and Gordon Smith (R-OR) is holding onto his $10,000 and Pat Roberts (R-KS) is holding on to his $5,000, and James Inhofe (R-OK) is holding on to his $4,000 and Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) isn't giving up her $10,000 nor is John Cornyn giving back the $5,000 he got. And vulnerable Republican rubber stamps Susan Collins, Saxby Chambliss and Norm Coleman each got $10,000 of Stevens' dirty money-- and they're keeping it.

California Congressman John Doolittle was also visited by the FBI and, in all probability, going to prison for a good long stay-- or until Bush pardons him. He too had a Political Action Committee that was handing out money to other Republican members of Congress, much of it to losers like Rick Santorum, Tom DeLay, and Katherine Harris. But dozens of sitting congressmen are happily sitting on some of the ill-gotten money Doolittle spread around-- over $258,000 in the last cycle. Some of the Republicans who didn't return money they got from Doolittle: Heather Wilson (R-NM), Thelma Drake (R-VA), Tim Walberg (R-MI), Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Tom Reynolds (R-NY), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Brian Bilbray (R-CA), Charlie Dent (R-PA), Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Robin Hayes (R-NC), Mean Jean Schmidt (R-OH), Dave Reichert (R-WA), Adrain Smith (R-NE), Jon Porter (R-NV), Vito Fossella (R-NY), Dan Lungren (R-CA), Jim Gerlach (R-PA), Randy Kuhl (R-NY), and loads of others.

I know it's going out on a limb to say this, but my guess is that the single most corrupt man in the House is Jerry Lewis (R-CA). He has spent well over $1,000,000 in legal fees to one of the top Republican-connected law firms in the U.S. in order to keep from being indicted. He's still a money machine and has been handing out huge amounts of it to his grateful colleagues who are well aware of how he gets it. Among the Republican hypocrites happy to take money from Lewis this year have been Rudy Giuliani, Heather Wilson, Dave Reichert, Jon Porter, Joe Knollenberg (R-MI), Robin Hayes, Sam Graves (R-MO), Jim Gerlach (R-PA), Steve Chabot (R-OH)... and that just scratches the surface.

But Kirsten Gillibrand gave two thousand dollars to the nuns in upstate New York.