Brett Kavanaugh Really, Really Likes to Perjure
Accused sex criminal and admitted drunkard Brett Kavanaugh (R-MD), is the Supreme Court nominee nominated by accused sex criminal and President of the United States Donald Trump. Throughout his Supreme Court confirmation hearing, his original D.C. Court of Appeals hearing from 2004 to 2006, and in a new hearing based upon an allegation of sexual assault, Brett Kavanaugh has demonstrated he has a love of perjury that rivals his suspicious love of baseball tickets.
In 2002, a Republican aide working for the Senate Judiciary Committee, Manuel Miranda, stole thousands of documents from Democratic senators on the committee. Miranda then forwarded these documents to many other individuals, including Brett Kavanaugh who replied to the email. These emails were revealed in 2018 as part of the hearings into Brett Kavanaugh.
Yet in 2004, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Ut.) questioned Brett Kavanaugh under oath with the following exchange:
Hatch: Now, this is an important question. Did Mr. Miranda ever share, reference, or provide you with any documents that appeared to you to have been drafted or prepared by Democratic staff members of the Senate Judiciary Committee?
Kavanaugh: No, I was not aware of that matter ever until I learned of it in the media late last year.
This was no small flub, as he continued to repeat this lie under oath to Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY):
Schumer: Had you seen them in any way? Did you ever come across memos from internal files of any Democratic members given to you or provided to you in any way?
In 2006, as his confirmation hearing continued, he was also questioned under oath by Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.):
Kennedy: Have you ever gone back, now that you are aware of it, and seen what decisions you may or might not have taken on the basis of documents that were illegally taken? …
Kavanaugh: Senator, there’s a very important premise in your question that I think is incorrect, which is I didn’t know about the memos or see the memos that I think you’re describing. So, I think –
Kennedy: Oh, you never saw any of those?
Kavanaugh: No, senator, that’s correct. I’m not aware of the memos, I never saw such memos that I think you’re referring to. I mean, I don’t know what the universe of memos might be, but I do know that I never received any memos and was not aware of any such memos. So, I just want to correct that premise that I think was in your question.
These answers were not Kavanaugh giving himself any room to truthfully tell his side of events from a certain perspective. Instead, Kavanaugh gave a definitive, concrete answer that was a lie. He committed perjury in 2004 and 2006 to multiple Senators. This alone should be disqualifying for a Supreme Court justice.
In a 2006 hearing, Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) questioned Kavanaugh under oath about an NSA program to warrantlessly surveil cellphones of people in the United States. Kavanaugh said he had no knowledge of such programs. In his 2018 Supreme Court nomination hearing, he confirmed that this account in 2006 was accurate.
Yet on September 17, 2001, Kavanaugh was emailing with a lawyer at the Bush Department of Justice regarding “implications of random/constant surveillance of phone and e-mail conversations of non-citizens who are in the United States.” Kavanaugh clearly had prior knowledge of these plans to warrantlessly surveil cellphones, prompting his questioning of the implications of such tactics all the way back in 2001. By telling Sen. Leahy that he had no knowledge of these programs, Kavanaugh perjured himself in the initial 2006 hearing and again in 2018 when he claimed the information he stated in 2006 was accurate.
Detention and Torture
During the same 2006 hearing mentioned above, Kavanaugh was questioned by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) about his support for William Haynes, General Counsel for the Department of Defense, and Haynes’ use of detention and torture. Kavanaugh made the following remarks under oath:
Kavanaugh: I was not and am not involved in the questions about the rules governing detention of combatants or — so I do not have any involvement with that.
In the 2018 hearing, Sen. Durbin explains that evidence since then reveal Kavanaugh was involved in discussions about access to counsel for detainees, in discussions regarding specific detained combatants (a detail confirmed by Kavanaugh and in emails), and in President Bush’s 2005 statement regarding Sen. John McCain’s amendment banning cruel and inhumane treatment of detainees.
With these three examples, Kavanaugh perjured himself in 2006 when he told Sen. Durbin that he was not involved with rules governing detention.
Nomination of William Pryor
In a hearing that took place in 2004, Sen. Ted Kennedy asked questions to Kavanaugh regarding the nomination of the controversial Judge William Pryor. Kavanaugh stated, under oath, that the nomination of Pryor was “not one that I worked on personally.”
Yet, recently released emails reveal quite a different story. In communications with other Justice Department officials, it is revealed that Kavanaugh was included in a conference call request to “coordinate plans and efforts” regarding the nomination. Kavanaugh also conducted an interview with Pryor in December 2002, four months before President Bush nominated him to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
In denying that he worked on the nomination of Judge William Pryor, Kavanaugh perjured himself.
Nomination of Charles Pickering
In his 2006 hearing, Kavanaugh claimed that Charles Pickering was not “one of the judicial nominees [he] was primarily handling.” Yet Derrick Johnson and Leslie Proll of the NAACP, one of the staunchest opponents to the nomination of Charles Pickering, explain that this is far from the truth.
His now-available written letters, coordinated planning and research, and ghostwriting of favorable op-eds, along with the fact that many details regarding Pickering’s nomination were deferred to Kavanaugh, plainly demonstrate another clear lie under oath in 2006.
Opinions on Investigating a Sitting President
In his 2018 Supreme Court hearing, Kavanaugh claimed to have “never taken a position on the constitutionality of indicting or investigating a sitting president.” He has written pieces for The Georgetown Law Journal in 1998, The Washington Post in 1999, and The Minnesota Law Review in 2009 regarding his beliefs about investigations and/or indictments of sitting presidents. These three articles demonstrate perjury in his 2018 claim to not take positions regarding this issue.
In the most recent hearing, one concerning his alleged assault of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, Kavanaugh claimed that high school friend Mark Judge wrote an “affidavit under threat of perjury” to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The actual document containing Mark Judge’s words is simply a signed letter from his lawyer.
Mark Judge’s signature appears nowhere on the letter and nowhere does it imply any sort of legal standing other than a mere letter sent out by Judge. Kavanaugh repeatedly claimed a simple letter was an affidavit carrying a possible penalty of perjury, which is false. Today, September 27, 2018, Kavanaugh perjured himself.
Also of note regarding Kavanaugh’s moral character: Mark Judge has not been subpoenaed to testify under oath by the Republican-led Senate Judiciary Committee.
Drinking with Judge
In attempting to explain how he could not have been at a party to assault Dr. Ford, Kavanaugh claimed that he was out of town on the weekends and would not have partied on weekdays because he had work. However, that latter claim is very dubious due to the memoir Wasted: Tales of a Gen-X Drunk, written by Judge.
Judge wrote the following:
Invariably I would be hungover — or still drunk — when I got to work at seven in the morning, and I spent most of the first hour just trying to hold myself together.
Included in the memoir is a “character” by the name of Bart O’Kavanaugh, a clear reference to Brett Kavanaugh, a fellow heavy drinker and party-goer. Other details of Judge’s memoir, such as his time working as an employee of Potomac Village Safeway, corroborate Dr. Ford’s testimony while casting doubt over Kavanaugh’s statements made under penalty of perjury.
Brett Kavanaugh perjured himself today when it came to the issue of polygraph tests as well. Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Cal.) asked if Kavanaugh had taken a polygraph test to confirm he was telling the truth, as his accuser, Dr. Ford, has passed a polygraph examination. Kavanaugh responded by claiming that “[t]hey’re not admissible in federal court because they are not reliable, as you know.”
His claim that polygraph tests “are not reliable” is directly against his own opinion from 2016. In Sack v. United States Department of Defense, Kavanaugh wrote that “law enforcement agencies use polygraphs to test the credibility of witnesses” and that polygraph examinations “serve law enforcement purposes.”
By claiming that polygraph tests are not reliable today, he directly contradicts an opinion he decided in 2016.
Various Suspicious Claims
These various claims cannot be confirmed as perjury just yet, due to the lack of testimony from other individuals. For example, Kavanaugh claimed that references to “boofing” and the “Devil’s Triangle” are references to flatulence and a drinking game respectively.
However, according to slang dictionary Urban Dictionary, a “Devil’s Triangle” is a term for a threesome between two men and one woman. Before Kavanaugh’s testimony today, there were no mentions online of the Devil’s Triangle being a drinking game. Instead, it refers to sexual acts, further contributing to the question of Kavanaugh’s behavior in regards to sexual acts against others. “Boofing” refers to taking in illicit drugs via the rectum.
Furthermore, Kavanaugh’s claims of his drinking habits have now been disputed by classmate Lynne Brookes on Chris Cumo’s CNN program.
With all of these lies under oath, his undeniable pattern of perjury to the US Senate, then why on Earth should we believe a single word of what he said today in his denial of sexual crimes against Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, Deborah Ramirez, and Julie Swetnick?
I believe these women, because they don’t have a well-documented and extensive history of perjury dating back to 2004.