What is Kamala Harris up to?

[Vinca]

She's got something on Kavanaugh. How's she going to spring it? For 2 days running she pressed him on whether or not he had conversations with anyone in Trump's attorney's office about the Mueller investigation. Yesterday she finally got a "no" out of him. Harris looked like the cat who caught the mouse. What's she got??????

[bluecollar2]

1. I'm with you...

She knows something.

[avebury]

2. Maybe she is positioning Kavanaugh to put him right in

Mueller's sites? Perhaps his appointment could be deemed part of Trump's efforts to obstruct the Mueller probe? Perhaps someone on Mueller's team fed her the intel on Kavenaugh for an end use that benefits the probe? If it turns out that Kavanaugh ends up geting pulled in for a "meeting" with the Mueller team it makes it more difficult for him to refuse to recuse himself on any matters relating to Trump.

If they can prove that he has committed perjury, while they might not get him off the bench (if the Rethugs can get the votes) but it would taint him for any matters relating to Trump.

Roberts, first and foremost, cares about the Supreme Court and its reputation. He may be a Republican but he does not want the SC reputation being tainted on his watch.

There is definitely something going on and we may not know what it is for a while (if ever). It makes for a lot of interesting speculation (hopefully with the side benefit of driving the other side nuts).

[EffieBlack]

7. This

[bucolic_frolic]

9. I totally agree about Roberts

It's unfortunate he's such a pro-corporate Chief Justice, but in his public interviews he does live, breathe, and eat the law. He cares deeply about the balanced reputation of the Court, its non-partisan stance, its public persona.

GWB is well criticized for the doofus things he did, WMD, war for money (it's what they always do) but somehow he appointed two GOP moderates: Roberts and Bernanke. Always wondered who advised GWB to make those choices, because he was not one to do his homework, and I doubt he had much network in the northeastern US.

[ProfessorPlum]

16. Another mind reader

"He cares deeply about the balanced reputation of the Court, its non-partisan stance, its public persona. "

I call BS. What other decisions, besides the ACA one that allowed a right wing health insurance scheme to pass, has Roberts voted on the correct side on?

[bucolic_frolic]

21. You do not call BS based on the public record of comments by the Chief Justice

You are out of line on this one.

[ProfessorPlum]

22. I don't care if he talks a good game

what are his decisions. Can you name one besides the couple of ACA votes he took where he was on the right side of the issue?

[bucolic_frolic]

25. The right side is your side?

I don't study his voting record. His public statements do matter. He respects the rule of law. He is moving to the center as he ages, and views the Court as a beacon of stability. You'd prefer Clarence Thomas?

[ProfessorPlum]

28. "He respects the rule of law"

holy shit does this assume facts not in evidence.

I'm glad you love chief justice Roberts so much. I hope he continues to deliver decisions that you approve of.

[ProfessorPlum]

29. finally, let me ask you this: Do you consider gutting the voting rights act to be on

the right side of that issue?

[shanny]

59. fwiw even on the ACA he was not on the right side.

He couldn't quite bring himself to vote it down entirely (given the way the law was constructed that would have been too blatantly partisan) but he's the one who inserted the poison pill of optional Medicaid expansion. Many thought that would sink the whole program; it certainly weakened it financially and made it less popular and more vulnerable.

[ProfessorPlum]

61. Thanks shanny

you are right. While he voted to keep the mandate, his gutting the medicaid expansion, allowing red state governors to opt out, hurt the ACA mightily.

[TrishaJ]

41. Yes. everyone is assuming that Kavanaugh is

going to make the court always 5-4 in favor of conservatives; but no guarantees that SCOTUS will automatically go 5-4 in favor of FASCISTS. If Kavanaugh is - goddess forbid - CONFIRMED, Roberts may become an important swing vote.

[ProfessorPlum]

12. how could you possibly know what Roberts cares about

"Roberts, first and foremost, cares about the Supreme Court and its reputation. He may be a Republican but he does not want the SC reputation being tainted on his watch. "

Citizens United happened under his watch

McCutcheon happened under his watch

they gutted the voting rights act under his watch

Just this year, the SC upheld gerrymandering, struck down a CA law that would expose those anti-abortion "crises centers", and upheld Trump's travel ban.

His legacy is already truly and thoroughly fucked and tainted by screwing over voters both by allowing discrimination and by flooding our politics with even more and more money.

Don't try to pretend he has any "care" about his legacy, except for more racial divide, more racial injustice, more class injustice, more sexist injustice, etc.

[Scruffy1]

26. You got that right.

I get so sick of hearing the media BS. He is a goddam fascist bastard. He's just a little better at PR than T-rump. If any of them have any sense of justice they would have quit the GOP long ago. And anyone who acceptss an appointment from Dolt 45 has no sense of honor. When I hear the word "originalist" spouted by the media I cringe. It's just anothr code word for whites only. Oh yeah we have a token in there, like Thomas, who is batshit crazy and wholly owned by his handlers.

[ProfessorPlum]

35. I agree - I have the same reaction to "originalist"

which seems to just be a label that they tack on to justify making any partisan decision they want.

[ProfessorGAC]

43. Originalist

It's also a bogus term because it requires these people to believe that they can read the minds of people dead 200 years.

They interpret the constitution by claiming that they are pursuing strict construction. So, they are interpretive literalists!

It's a total scam made up by people far less smart than they think they are.

[ProfessorPlum]

44. well said

[mikeysnot]

33. thank you

beat me too it. roberts is an ass, so throw the janASS decision on that pile of crap.

[NewJeffCT]

13. I'm guessing

she may call somebody at the law firm as a witness that will testify he/she spoke with Kavanaugh about the Mueller case, opening him up to perjury. Or, maybe she has an affadavit from a person at the law firm asserting what they spoke about?

[ancianita]

15. So the he'd HAVE to recuse himself? Sounds like a plan.

[C_U_L8R]

27. Interesting - either witness or target

He'd have to recuse

[Bernardo de La Paz]

31. Yes. If not Mueller, then Kavanaugh has made his bed for impeachment when Demcrats win.

Maybe in 2021 he will be impeached and convicted in the Senate.

Or Kavanaugh may simply be convicted in a court of perjury and other charges and resign in shame.

Or ...

... maybe he won't be confirmed if a couple of RepubliCon Senators can see that the light at the end of the tunnel is a huge locomotive heading their way.

[watoos]

3. She better hurry up

Time is running out. Collins and Murkowski are good with Roe v Wade being dismantled.

[EffieBlack]

10. I think she's we aware of the clock and knows exactly what she's doing

And just because we don't see the wheels turning doesn't mean things aren't happening.

Until a couple of days ago, we had no idea what the Dems were planning for the hearing, only to be presented with a carefully thought-out, perfectly coordinated, and brilliantly executed strategy.

There's a lot more going on than meets the eye.

[NewJeffCT]

19. I'm thankful

that the Democrats have some pretty sharp lawyers on both the Senate and House judiciary committees. Republicans have Charles Grassley (not a lawyer) in the Senate and people like Steve King, Louis Gohmert and Darrell Issa in the House.

[floWteiuQ]

4. Best case scenario...

is a witness who testified against him!

[bucolic_frolic]

5. In the post-Trump era

purges of the crooked will be common. Impeachment will be in the toolbox. America will clean up its act.

[ancianita]

18. I want to see dead Kochs and no-money politics in the post-Trump era, or none of this will happen.

[ehrnst]

6. She (hopefully) is waiting to spring it at the last minute

when it's too late to do any damage control by the GOP.

[Nitram]

8. Kavanaugh looked flustered, scared, and cornered. It's possible Harris is just fishing, but I

really hope she actually has something solid.

[Eyeball_Kid]

30. Harris is spreading her wings. (This isn't a sexist comment.)

She's exercising her ascending power in a measured, careful manner. If she's got nothing, then she's tarnishing her credibility. That's not like her. She's too smart for that nonsense. Harris set Kavanaugh up for a huge fall. Expect it.

[HuskyOffset]

11. I'm not a lawyer

but when I saw this line of questioning, the first thing I thought of was that Kamala somehow has info that Kavanaugh somehow made assurances to someone from that law firm of how he would rule if he was on the SC and a case came up involving a subpeona being served on the president. Is that possible?

[ProfessorPlum]

14. of course

that is the most likely explanation. that a quid pro quo was established. If she can prove it, Kavanaugh would be forced (under most lawful circumstances) to recuse himself from any decisions regarding Mueller's investigations.

[Nitram]

47. A credible alternative to a quid pro quo would be that he gave advice based on his understanding of

Executive Privilege.

[aikoaiko]

17. I hope she has something good because most of these gotchya moments with emails aren't

[Pachamama]

20. A Prosecutor NEVER asks a question that they don't already know the answer to it

She knows the answer. Kavanaugh has two choices to how he can proceed and how badly its going to go for him.

a) tell the truth and face the consequences that it can lead to some bad places
b) lie and hope they don't notice, but if they do (which a good prosecutor will know is a lie) that you can survive the consequences

I believe Kavanaugh will not get confirmed because the answer will be coming soon and if he is, the answer to the question will have him eventually impeached.

[markpkessinger]

49. The question isn't whether she knows the answer . . .

. . . The question is can she produce hard evidence of what she says she knows.

[Achilleaze]

23. The Big Reveal (one hopes for the sake of the USA)

[njhoneybadger]

24. Nothing now that Kavanaugh had a day to get his story straight with the unsub

Last edited Fri Sep 7, 2018, 10:06 AM - Edit history (1)

The first day he looked worried. The second day not so much

[BeyondGeography]

32. A "reliable" albeit anonymous source...This particular saga appears to be over

On Thursday, Kavanaugh and GOP backers on the Judiciary Committee undertook damage control. Given a chance to revisit the issue by Utah Sens. Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee, the nominee said, “I haven’t had any inappropriate conversations about that investigation with anyone. I’ve never given anyone any hints, forecasts, previews, winks — nothing about my view as a judge or how I would rule as a judge, on that or anything related to that.”

When her turn came Thursday, it turned out Harris didn’t have the goods after all. After another couple of courtroom-style go-rounds between veteran lawyers, Kavanaugh issued a flat-out “no” to Harris’ yes-or-no question.And that was it. Harris said she was just asking a question based on what she termed “reliable” information that Kavanaugh had talked with someone at the Trump-linked law firm. She did not identify her source or give any details of the tip.

“It wasn’t a trick question,” Harris spokeswoman Lily Adams said. “His answer (Wednesday) night was entirely unclear, and it raised concerns by many people about whether this had happened.”

Adams said Harris does not plan on doing anything more with the information she said she received from her source.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/GOP-tries-to-help-Kavanaugh-after-tough-13210347.php#photo-16114298

[markpkessinger]

46. If she doesn't have the goods, that was an INCREDIBLY stupid move! n/t

[BeyondGeography]

48. "Kamala Harris' viral grilling of Kavanaugh ends with a thud," is the SF Chronicle headline

I think she knew it would and calculated that the pre-thud buzz would make it worth her while.

[markpkessinger]

50. If a Republican Senator . . .

. . . had insinuated in a nomination hearing that he had something on a Democratic nominee, and then couldn't produce the evidence, everybody in this forum would be screaming bloody murder about McCarthyism. And rightly so.

Anybody who thinks Senator Harris helped our cause at all with this is kidding themselves.

[George II]

55. So now you're insinuating (I'm being nice by saying "insinuating") that Kamala Harris' questioning..

...is equivalent to McCarthyism?

[rzemanfl]

56. Bookmarking. n/t

[George II]

53. Nice.

[rso]

34. Harris

Mueller may have audio or other evidence of Kavanaugh assuring someone that the trump case will be “taken care of”. Mueller’s evidence may have been provided to Harris. She certainly looked like the cat that ate the canary when Kavanaugh finally answered “no”.

[MontanaMama]

36. Aren't the public hearings over?

I thought I heard Cory Booker say that today was private questioning behind closed doors. It was said up thread that we may never know the answer to what Sen Harris has on Kavenaugh....unless he is forced to recuse himself on anything to do with the pResident. Lordy I hope she springs it soon..whatever it is.

[Texin]

37. Even if he did perjure himself before the Committee and before that,

Grassley and McConnell and the other rethugs have demonstrated consistently throughout this entire ordeal that they don't have a fundamental problem with Shitler's treason, because they've participated in providing cover, therefore, making themselves co-conspirators with him in treason. McConnell, when informed by Obama of Russia's hacks before the insertion of their Manchurian candidate, refused to allow them to inform the people of the US about it on a joint party announcement. He and his cohorts in the Senate - not all of them, but certainly a majority - have perpetuated it and benefited from it financially and politically.

tRump is the fulfillment of their favorite wet dream: the total destruction of every New Deal and Great Society program that benefited the common man and woman and gave minorities basic civil rights, together with the progressive reforms enacted during Obama's term. They have wanted an elite status for white, rich Americans and the rest of the lot of us can go pound sand and eat dirt. They want, more than anything on Earth and in heaven to come (as if!), to install and ensure a permanent white, minority-ruled America.

They will do nothing. Kavanaugh is their lock on the SCOTUS to make sure that this is all fulfilled and perpetuated.

[dlk]

38. Future Impeachment for Perjury?

[Honeycombe8]

39. She did not get a "no" from him, if you're speaking of his conversing with that law firm re Mueller.

He did not say he didn't have any conversations with someone from that firm about the Mueller investigation.

He said he didn't have any inappropriate discussions with anyone about that matter.

If you see the difference. "Inappropriate" is a subjective description. He didn't lie. Using his description, he could have had a conversation w/someone from that firm about Mueller, but in his view, it wasn't "inappropriate."

Then Hatch appeared the next day and characterized his testimony as him having said he had not had any discussions with a member of that firm about Mueller....and that's not what Kavanaugh said. As you can see, Hatch was successful in misstating the testimony.

[Sanity Claws]

51. She questioned him again after that

And got a definite no from him.

[Honeycombe8]

62. No, he never says no. Here's her whole questioning.

At the beginning he says "I'mnot remembering." Then says he has not had "inappropriate" discussions about the Mueller investigaiton w/anyone. Near the end he says he has discussed Mueller with people, but whether he's discussed with anyone who works at that law firm, he'd need a roster of who is at that firm, but he's not remembering anything.

That's it.

[AncientGeezer]

57. Actually there was a no

[Wounded Bear]

40. I'm a cynic. She's polishing her public profile...

[DavidDvorkin]

42. She's up to the 2020 nomination.

[markpkessinger]

45. I sincerely hope she has the goods -- and can produce them

Gotta say I was a little disturbed at her response later in the day when she was asked about this. She said her source had come to her "confidentially" and she didn't want to violate that confidentiality. Good God, woman, you either have the goods or you don't! And if she does have the goods, they had better be rock solid and irrefutable, because if they are not, this whole thing will blow up in Democrats' faces big time.

[George II]

52. You seem to be conducting a one-person assault on Kamala Harris. Why? Did you read this????

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211107542

[markpkessinger]

54. I am expressing my opinion about what I believe to have been a colossally stupid political move ...

When politicians do things that are praiseworthy, I praise them (as indeed I have praised Harris in the past). When they screw up, I think they should be called out on it.

[NastyRiffraff]

58. she clearly knows something

Kavanaugh tried, again and again, to get her to tell him who exactly she was talking about in the law firm. She refused, and kept pressing for a yes or no answer. She finally got a no, and cut him short with a Thank You.

Yes, she has something. She's a smart prosecutor and knows how to interrogate a witness.

[Hav]

60. Different possibilities:

- She knew that he did talk with someone from that company and either wanted to hear that from him or she was fishing and wanted to see whether he would reveal that he talked about this subject with previously unknown persons
- She knows of no one he did talk with but wanted him to answer that because it is an important question. His vague answers were interpreted as a sign that he wanted to hide something when he could have been just unsure. Which means he talked about this subject with other lawyers but not necessarily from this firm.

I was wondering why Harris, if she knew the answer to her question, wouldn't start naming persons from that firm herself after he didn't reveal anything. He couldn't have known what Harris knew and that line of questioning would have forced him to give more definite answers.
Now that she finally got the no, it would have been the perfect time to reveal if he was lying or not if she knew something. But it seems it was just a gamble that was prolonged because of his evasive nature.