A Thousand Bubbles
Boil the Pot
See the letter, below.
Brett Kavanaugh's Body Language Says It All, According To An Expert
Natalie Gontcharova Refinery29September 25, 2018
Every time Sen. Harris asks him the question, there is at least 10 seconds of silence before he starts talking, while normally his responses would be quicker. He evades the question, asks Harris questions in response, and touches his face "in self-comfort."
"It's as though there's a game taking place," says Body language expert Patti Wood, author of Snap: Making the Most of First Impressions, Body Language, and Charisma. Smiling out of context because your subconscious mind is taking pleasure in having fooled somebody. "The self-satisfied smile — that smug grin — is on the very edge of 'duping delight.' He's in game mode there, and she, well, she's always in game mode. He's thinking,I'm winning in this game, I'm getting away with not giving you the answer."
Taking a sip of water, she adds, is a way of covering his true emotions. "That is a coached move and he is using it to cover his anxiety and the tongue thrust shows his suppressed anger."
Here is an informative article about alcohol-induced blackouts. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/29/opinion/sunday/brett-kavanaugh-drinking-blackouts.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
People who have them often experience them as simply going to sleep, but actually they stay awake and active and don't remember what or where the next day. Ingesting alcohol very quickly is usually the cause of blackouts. Drinking games in high school and college are designed to get a person (usually a woman) so drunk she won't remember, but not so drunk that she falls asleep.
Send your letter to Senators Flake, Collins, Murkowski, Manchin, Donnelly, and Heitkamp
Also Paul, Portman, Sasse
Find each Senator's website contact page at: https://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?
Dear Senator Flake,
I am thankful that you are one Republican who had the integrity to delay the "plowing through" of an undeserving jurist until a thorough FBI investigation reveals facts that will either support or exculpate the horrible accusations against Judge Kavanaugh.
Dear Senator Sasse,
I am thankful that at least one Republican had the integrity to delay the "plowing through" of an undeserving jurist until a thorough FBI investigation reveals facts that will either support or exculpate the horrible accusations against Judge Kavanaugh.
I say "undeserving jurist" because in addition to his show of anger and self-pitying pathos, Kavanaugh revealed a temperament that disqualifies him for any kind of judgeship: his rabid political bias. To claim that the legitimate accusation of Dr. Ford and others is a "left wing conspiracy," coming from resentment by the Clintons, is unsubstantiated vile bile. How could he be an impartial judge in a case involving Republican vs Democratic interests? This is the main reason to call for his rejection as Supreme Court Justice (or Federal Court judge for that matter).
Kavanaugh's angry, macho "show of strength" was really a show of weakness. Nevertheless, his anger and tears could be understandable as coming from someone who believes he was unfairly accused. However, the anger could also indicate someone who feels privileged and too entitled to deserve such shabby accusations, whether true or not. The way he kept evading answers and referring to his "merit badges" (I busted my butt getting good grades) reveals an "I'm too good to be criticized" attitude.
Possibly, Kavanaugh sincerely does not remember "the event" (or events). But his sincerity is questionable after he tried to falsify the meaning of common terms associated with him in the yearbook, such as "Renata Alumnius" and "Ralph champion." If he lies about little things, he's probably lying about the important things as well.
Please do not elevate Bret Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Doing so will degrade the Court's stature, which is its only power.
Kavanaugh's vote on Supreme Court would give Trump's convicted associates a Get Out Of Jail Free card.
On next month's SCOTUS docket is Gamble vs US (No. 17-646). This is what the rush to confirm Kavanaugh is all about. At stake is the "separate sovereigns" exemption to double jeopardy. If Kavanaugh and the other 4 conservative Justices vote to overrule, people given a presidential pardon for federal crimes would not be tried for that crime at the state level.
Separate sovereigns doctrine. Under this doctrine, the prohibition on double jeopardy does not prevent dual prosecution when the prosecutions are each by separate sovereigns. Thus, a criminal defendant can be prosecuted by a state court and then by a federal court (or the other way around).
A key reason why Kavanaugh is being rammed through: separate sovereigns doctrine to be reviewed by SCOTUS in October.
Would remove state's ability to prosecute crimes after a presidential pardon.
Gamble v. United States (Docket no 17-646) is a pending United States Supreme Court case about the separate sovereignty exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which allows both federal and state prosecution of the same crime as the governments are "separate sovereigns". Terance Martez Gamble was prosecuted under both state and then federal laws for possessing a gun while being a felon; his petition arguing that doing so was double jeopardy was denied due to the exception. In June 2018, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
Supreme Court to weigh double jeopardy issue that could impede state cases after presidential pardon
By Debra Cassens Weiss Posted June 29, 2018,
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to consider whether to overturn a long-standing rule that allows federal and state prosecutions for the same offense.
The cert petition filed on behalf of Terance Gamble urges the Supreme Court to overrule the so-called “separate sovereigns exception” and “restore the original meaning of the double jeopardy clause.” NBC News and CNN have coverage, while the SCOTUSblog case page is here.
If the Supreme Court overturns the precedent, it could make it more difficult for a state to try someone who is pardoned by the president after federal trial proceedings have begun, according to CNN Supreme Court analyst Stephen Vladeck, a University of Texas law professor.
Gamble was pulled over for a broken taillight in November 2015, more than seven years after his conviction for second-degree robbery. Police smelled marijuana, conducted a search and found marijuana and a handgun. Gamble was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm under Alabama law and served a one-year sentence.
During the Alabama prosecution, Gamble was also charged under federal law for being a felon in possession of a firearm, based on the same incident. He entered a conditional guilty plea that reserved his right to raise the double jeopardy issue on appeal, and received a four-year sentence. He will be released nearly three years after he would have been released from state prison.
“The separate-sovereigns exception turns federalism on its head,” Gamble’s cert petition asserts. “Gamble’s is a case in point. Far from enhancing his freedoms and securing his liberty, the constitutional division of sovereign power has cost him three years of his life.”
The separate-sovereigns exception to the double jeopardy clause has its origins in an 1847 decision, according to the cert petition. The doctrine “fully crystallized” in a pair of 1959 decisions that were decided before the Supreme Court applied the double jeopardy clause to the states through the 14th Amendment. As a result, the “doctrinal underpinnings” of the separate-sovereigns exceptions have eroded, the cert petition argues.
Why a Kavanaugh confirmation could limit the NY AG’s power
The window to prosecute Trump or his associates may be shrinking.
By JEFF COLTIN September 27, 2018
Democratic New York attorney general nominee Letitia James – who is widely expected to win election in November – ran on the promise to be a legal backstop against President Donald Trump. She argued that if Trump were to pardon himself or associates convicted of federal crimes, that she, as attorney general, could then charge them again in New York under state law, “safeguard(ing) against President Trump’s attacks on the rule of law in our country.”
But, if the U.S. Senate confirms President Trump’s nominee Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, that might be impossible.
The Supreme Court will hear a case in the upcoming term that could bar New York from prosecuting crimes that already have been tried at the federal level. This issue was raised most recently by Natasha Bertrand, a staff writer at The Atlantic, and it’s previously been written about by Fordham University Law Professor Jed Shugerman in Slate, among others. The case is Gamble v. United States, and the issue at hand, as SCOTUSblog writes, is “whether the Supreme Court should overrule the ‘separate sovereigns’ exception to the double jeopardy clause.”
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbids double jeopardy – keeping individuals from being prosecuted more than once for the same crime. But a Supreme Court ruling more than a century ago provided an exception known as “separate sovereigns” that allows state and federal courts to prosecute for the same crime, since the systems are sovereign and different. The case being heard by the court, Gamble, arose from an Alabama man who was tried in both state and federal court for the same instance of being caught with an illegal handgun. The case seems far away from the White House, but it’s possible that the Court’s ruling could be broad – reaching even to Trump.
But even if the Supreme Court overturns the separate sovereigns exception precedent, the circumstances in which that would determine New York’s ability to prosecute Trump or his associates for potential crimes uncovered by Special Counsel Robert Mueller may not arise.
First, Trump would have to issue a pardon to individuals who have been convicted or pleaded guilty in cases arising from the investigation, such as Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort and his former lawyer Michael Cohen. If Trump issued pardons, New York law as it stands wouldn’t let the attorney general prosecute right away. There may be a federal exception to double jeopardy, but it’s illegal in New York, too. So the state would need to pass a law to change that, letting state prosecutors take up crimes that have already been tried federally. There’s no chance the Republican-controlled state Senate would do such a thing. But Democrats may win a state Senate majority in November and consider the legislation. The Assembly’s Democratic majority signalled support of such a move to City & State in August, and Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Attorney General Barbara Underwood and James are all in favor.
Brett Kavanaugh and Gamble vs. U.S., No. 17-646
Russell Grand II Community Friday September 28, 2018
I believe there is one main reason that the GOP desperately needs to get Kavanaugh confirmed as soon as they can: the upcoming SCOTUS case Gamble vs. U.S., No. 17-646. www.scotusblog.com/...
With Gamble vs. U.S., No. 17-646, the results of this case will have the power to change the lives of Donald Trump and every Republican scumbag in Congress (and beyond), as well as America as we know it. Gamble vs. U.S. deals with the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause and, if overruled, will allow a sitting president to pardon both federal and state-level crimes.
Policy and Politics - what do you think?
With over seven decades of experience - feeling the hopes and disappointments of politics, seeing the idealism and disgust of policies - some of the things Bruce Joffe has learned in life may be wisdom, others may be illusion. You decide.
Categories - select the topics that interest you
Want to know when a new blog is posted? Click RSS