Trump's Card

[San Bernardhinault]

What are the consequences for a supreme court justice if he has perjured himself? I assume that the Republican senate will confirm him, pretty much whatever happens in the next month. So I'm wondering if this actually harms him? Can he be sent to prison? Get suspended or removed from the court? And if so, who gets to decide on that?

[Snake Plissken]

Harris vs Kavanaugh.

https://twitter.com/JasonOverstreet/status/1037527088067035136

[ursus arctos]

The underlying crime is that of lying to the federal government, the same offence that Mueller has charged a number of people with (and which Flynn, among others, pled to).

There are significant procedural and substantive barriers to any such prosecution, however.

On the procedural side, it simply cannot see any Justice Department in a Republican Administration agreeing to such a charge (even if the US Attorney for the District of Columbia recommended that it be brought). On the substantive side, the primary hurdle would be proving that Kavanaugh lied "knowingly and wittingly" rather than just "failing to recall" the pertinent facts.

I do wonder how Susan Collins manages to sleep at night.

[Tubby Isaacs]

She can vote against and they'll still win, won't they?

[ursus arctos]

Yes

[San Bernardhinault]

The underlying crime is that of lying to the federal government, the same offence that Mueller has charged a number of people with (and which Flynn, among others, pled to).

There are significant procedural and substantive barriers to any such prosecution, however.

On the procedural side, it simply cannot see any Justice Department in a Republican Administration agreeing to such a charge (even if the US Attorney for the District of Columbia recommended that it be brought). On the substantive side, the primary hurdle would be proving that Kavanaugh lied "knowingly and wittingly" rather than just "failing to recall" the pertinent facts.

So, and understand that this is a hypothetical, during Kamala Harris's first term in 2021 Kavanaugh could be prosecuted and (more hypothetically) convicted of perjury.

Would that automatically remove him from the bench? Or, if not, could he get locked up, and if so would that remove him from voting on any supreme court decision for the duration of his sentence?

And who would oversee that process if not the Supreme Court?

[ursus arctos]

My immediate thought is that the statute of limitations would have run by then, but let me check.

[San Bernardhinault]

There's a statute of limitations on perjury? I'd have thought that would be something the authorities would make sure could be on the books for ever. I'd have thought the point of the threat of perjury is that the truth might come out sometime in the future and you're still going to be locked up for your lies.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Did you see this? I don't know if "not involved" is going to fly very far.

https://twitter.com/DavidLat/status/1037818153034817537

[ursus arctos]

So, the statute is five years, so that is theoretically possible.

The two big problems I see with what is an extraordinarily unlikely hypothetical to start with is a) that he would have to be impeached after being convicted in the criminal proceeding, and I can't see any Republican Senator voting to convict him or the GOP having fewer than 34 Senate seats before the clock runs out and b) the likely sentence for a first time offender of Kavanaugh's background would be a few months (if that), which could be served during one of the Court's recesses.

One highly technical point. It isn't "perjury" per se (because the statement(s) were not made in a judicial proceeding), it is "mak[ing] any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation" to "the legislative branch" "of the Government of the United States".

[ursus arctos]

SB, the UK position on statutes of limitations is extreme (in favour of prosecutions) among developed countries. The US position is much more mainstream.

[caja-dglh]

Well, you also might think that rape wouldn't reach a point where it went stale, but...

[ursus arctos]

Tubbs, Lat used to be a lawyer and is a smart (if profoundly strange) individual.

His argument is one that a defence lawyer would most certainly make, and illustrates how difficult it would be to obtain a conviction.

[San Bernardhinault]

That suggests that - bar one party getting 67 seats in the senate - there's actually no harm in lying during confirmation hearings. There's no consequences at all. He'll still get to sit on the court for eternity.

One final question on the hypothetical - does the impeachment have a statute of limitations or could that happen at any point?

[ursus arctos]

There's no statute of limitations for impeachment. At the same time, the rules for impeachment are grounded in a long-accepted norm that Senators would not vote blindly in support of anyone of their party.

Nor is there a requirement that there be a criminal prosecution before impeachment. He could theoretically be impeached without ever having been charged.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Tubbs, Lat used to be a lawyer and is a smart (if profoundly strange) individual.

His argument is one that a defence lawyer would most certainly make, and illustrates how difficult it would be to obtain a conviction.

It looked pretty convincing to me. "Not involved" seems to be talking about a precise part of the process.

[ursus arctos]

Thankfully, we are not yet determining the outcome of criminal trials on the basis of ten tweets.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I didn't mention criminal trials. It just looks like a reasonable explanation.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I don't entirely trust this site, but Paul Krugman linked to it. I was interested in New Jersey fighting back against ACA sabotage by Congress.

http://acasignups.net/18/09/08/new-j...t-gop-sabotage

Any thoughts? I get that you need both the governorship and state assembly, but is there a plan here for those states where Democrats hold those?

[Femme Folle]

I didn't mention criminal trials. It just looks like a reasonable explanation.

No disrespect, Tubbs, but this is probably why you aren't a judge. Also, why you may one day fall victim to an unscrupulous used car salesman or estate agent.

[Femme Folle]

I don't entirely trust this site, but Paul Krugman linked to it. I was interested in New Jersey fighting back against ACA sabotage by Congress.

http://acasignups.net/18/09/08/new-j...t-gop-sabotage

Any thoughts? I get that you need both the governorship and state assembly, but is there a plan here for those states where Democrats hold those?

So yes, the states have the ability to replace the ACA on their own for the residents of the state. Technically, they don't need the federal government's help for that, especially richer states like NY, CA, NJ, etc.. What the issue is, is that there are states (mostly 'red' states) that don't have the budget to pay for it. Those are the states with the poorest people--i.e., the people who are most in need of the ACA.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Poor people everywhere need it.

I notice that a few states who could afford it have Republican governors. Shame.

[Femme Folle]

That's why it's almost more important to vote Democratic at the state and local levels than it is at the federal level. Yes, the GOP Congress can inflict a lot of damage, but some of that damage can be counteracted/mitigated at the state level.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Yeah. Sadly, some of the Republican governors in blue states (eg Maryland) seem to be likely to win again.

[Flynnie]

Hogan has played a blinder in terms of governing as a Republican in a usually Democratic state. Lots of parking tanks on Democratic territory type stuff. I wouldn't entirely rule Jealous out, statewide races do not get the polling attention nationwide races do so it's been a month since the last poll. That's a lot of time. But it doesn't look good.