It turns out his integrity is not absolutely unquestioned
Over the course of the morning I read, via a slew of name lawyers on Twitter, that both the American Bar Association and Yale Law school had withdrawn their endorsements of Kavanaugh pending an investigation. Greg Sargent at the Post wrote about it early in the day:
During his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, Brett Kavanaugh defended his qualifications for the Supreme Court by repeatedly citing his support from the American Bar Association. Crucially, Kavanaugh noted that the ABA had vetted him for the position. Kavanaugh said this not once but twice.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Kavanaugh’s chief defender, a man who melted down in a fit of histrionic rage at the sight of Kavanaugh getting confronted with the thoroughly credible testimony of Christine Blasey Ford, also cited the ABA’s support for Kavanaugh. Graham specifically cited the ABA, which he called the “gold standard,” in making the case that Kavanaugh “lived a good life” and that “his integrity is absolutely unquestioned.”
Now the ABA has issued a new letter calling for a renewed FBI background check into the charges against Kavanaugh, insisting that the Judiciary Committee must not hold any vote on his nomination until this happens:
The American Bar Association urges the United States Senate Judiciary Committee (and, as appropriate, the full Senate) to conduct a confirmation vote on Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination only after an appropriate background check into the allegations made by Professor Ford and others is completed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
So bang went Kavanaugh’s claim that the ABA had vetted him for the position. (Does that count as yet another of his many lies?)
What’s more, the ABA is also asserting that voting to move him forward now — absent a reopened FBI background check — would represent a complete abdication of advice and consent duty on the part of individual senators, one that would flout the rule of law and due process.
That is, a complete abdication of duty by senators like Jeff Flake of Arizona.
So any Republican senators who are lawyers might be deeply uncomfortable with that.
Sargent says the decision to order the FBI investigation means they will interview Mark Judge.
Kavanaugh absolutely would not say he was willing to have an FBI investigation yesterday, no matter how hard the Democrats pressed him. So with any luck this is curtains for that hateful whiny entitled blowhard.
https://www.facebook.com/144310995587370/photos/a.271728576178944/2105418866143230/?type=3&theater
So the question is, will Mark Judge lie for his friend under oath? To the FBI?
I’m not so sure about that. They may well have vetted him, in the sense that they reviewed the soundness of his work history, as that is within the purview of the bar association. They probably did not review his criminal history, beyond perhaps requesting a criminal history check from law enforcement. I would put this one down not so much as a lie, more a misconstruing of what they do. This same that seems to be playing out regarding the FBI’s background checks – it has been claimed that these clear him of this accusation, but a background check is not the same thing as an investigation into a specific incident.
Fair point.