During a call-in interview Judiciary Committee ranking member Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., revealed plans for House Democrats to investigate and impeach Justice Brett Kavanaugh for alleged perjury.
Here’s their plan:
The first is to go after the FBI for how they handled the investigation into unsubstantiated claims he sexually assaulted women. “They didn’t even do a half-ass job,” he said. “They didn’t interview 30 witnesses who said ‘Interview me! I’ve got a lot to say!’” he said, while mimicking people waving their hands to be called on.
This of course is ridiculous, as Kavanaugh has been subject to now 7 FBI background investigations, not to mention two Senate Judiciary background investigations.
Here’s the other plan:
His other plan is to go after Kavanaugh because “there’s a real indication that Kavanaugh committed perjury.” He claimed that The Atlantic published an article about the allegations of a third woman. Then he claimed that when Kavanaugh was “asked at a committee hearing under oath when he first heard of the subject, he said, ‘When I’d heard of the Atlantic article.’ But there is an email chain apparently dating from well before that from him about ‘How can we deal with this?’” Nadler told the caller.
Nadler was apparently discussing a slightly different claim, since debunked, which is that Kavanaugh perjured himself when he denied hearing of The New Yorker’s disputed allegation involving Deborah Ramirez until the story came out.
This of course is spurious, at best:
Considering that The New Yorker included a denial from Kavanaugh in its own controversial story, and was asking him about it right before publication, and he acknowledged all that in his Senate testimony, it’s unclear how fruitful such a perjury claim would be.
So spurious one of the callers pushed back at Nadlers plan:
When the caller objected to the plan, Nadler pushed back, “That’s not technical, that’s real.” He conceded that maybe it was not a great plan, since even if Kavanaugh could be removed, it might not result in the political results desired.
“The worst-case scenario — or best case depending on your point of view — you prove he committed perjury, about a terrible subject and the Judicial Conference recommends you impeach him. So the president appoints someone just as bad.”
When the caller suggested going after Kavanaugh quietly, Nadler explained, “You can’t do it quietly because word will get out that the FBI or the committee is reaching out to witnesses.”
The caller then suggested that impeachment might still be worthwhile because the president elected in 2020 could nominate someone else. Nadler said the problem was that any investigation wouldn’t take long enough to last until the presidential election.
“There are a finite amount of witnesses. I don’t see why it should take long at all,” he said. “We’re not talking about a 30-year scheme of getting money from Russians via hidden sources — that takes time.”
The next couple of years are going to be a circus, at least in the House.
The Democrats have gone nuts.