thismeintiel said:
More accurately, I would say you don't really have any facts to support your side. It's all based on emotion. But, that's fine. To each their own. Have a nice night. |
Brett Kavanaugh was adamant as he sat in the witness chair at his 2006 confirmation hearing to be an appeals court judge. Kavanaugh was being questioned by Democrats about his knowledge of President George W. Bush's torture policy and treatment of detainees while he served as associate White House counsel.
He responded that he was "not involved" in "questions about the rules governing detention of combatants."
Senate Democrats have never fully accepted Kavanaugh's answers to questions about one of the Bush administration's most controversial policies, and now they are prepared to resurrect the issue as Kavanaugh faces a hearing as President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee.
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., whose questions in 2006 elicited Kavanaugh's denial, said in an interview this week that "what he told us under oath is not accurate."
Democrats are demanding Bush White House files to pin down specifics of any Kavanaugh involvement in detainee policy discussions, which could slow down the Trump administration's hope to have Kavanaugh confirmed before the Supreme Court reconvenes on Oct. 1.
Kavanaugh was involved in at least one contentious meeting at the White House Counsel's Office in 2002, and two former White House officials detailed his role in interviews this week with The Washington Post. Bush was then developing his policy on detention and interrogation of terrorism suspects, and Kavanaugh was asked to interpret an important question about how the detainee policy was likely to be viewed in a Supreme Court challenge, specifically by Justice Anthony Kennedy, for whom he had served as a clerk.
Kavanaugh weighed in on how he thought Kennedy would vote on whether certain detainees should be denied a chance to be heard and have legal counsel, according to the other participants.
Kavanaugh had already been confirmed for the circuit court when the White House meeting became public in a Post report. Democrats including Durbin have sought ever since to question Kavanaugh about whether he misled the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Kavanaugh declined an interview request. White House spokesman Raj Shah said in a statement that "Judge Kavanaugh's testimony accurately reflected the facts."
The two former White House officials who were in the meeting with Kavanaugh said they don't think Kavanaugh was in the loop on Bush's overall torture policy. One of those officials, former Deputy White House Counsel Tim Flanigan, said that the policy was tightly "compartmentalized" and that Kavanaugh was not authorized to know about it. The second official agreed to speak on the condition of anonymity and confirmed Flanigan's recollection.
Still, Durbin said that there is a conflict between Kavanaugh's testimony that he was not involved in rules governing detainees and his participation in a meeting about whether detainees should be given legal counsel. "It is a critical element in detention and interrogation as to whether a person is represented by counsel," Durbin said.
Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, a Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, echoed Durbin's concern, saying in a statement to The Post that Kavanaugh "held high-level positions within the White House, and he reportedly weighed in on how his former boss, Justice Kennedy, would rule on detainee treatment issues. Yet he claimed he had no knowledge of the torture policies of the Bush Administration during his 2006 confirmation hearing before the Judiciary Committee. This is precisely why this document production is so crucial in this confirmation process."
He may have not been involved in the torture side but he is a shady mother fucker just like all the Bush Jr. goons. He obviously weighed in on the legal representation issue. Now before you start spouting that I support terrorist (which Cheney and Bush Jr. used against democrats in 2004 reelection), I just want to say that I think it is fucked up for CIA to run secret prisons while torturing people (torture is proven not to be effective interrogating method because the person will simply say anything to make it stop). I can't think of one credible case where torture resulted in us gaining any advantage. Just look at the aftermath of Abu Ghraib. That surely won us a lot of friends in Iraq.
Last edited by sethnintendo - on 09 October 2018
