Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, July 10, 2018

During an CNN interview on Tuesday morning, White House deputy press secretary Raj Shah did not deny an NBC report that outgoing Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy "received assurances" from President Trump that if he retired, Judge Brett Kavanaugh -- one of Kennedy's former clerks -- would be nominated to be his replacement. ... If NBC's report is true, it means Kennedy would effectively have been given control over a SCOTUS seat for 60 years -- the 30 years he served, and the 30 or so the 53-year-old Kavanaugh will likely serve on the court if confirmed.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

The Fart of the Deal, natch....

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2018-07-10 10:09 AM | Reply

This should assuage leftist fears since they liked Kennedy and would like someone like him in that position. So how many DEM Senators are going to vote for Kavanaugh?

#2 | Posted by jamesgelliott at 2018-07-10 10:21 AM | Reply

"At another point during the CNN interview, Shah was asked if Trump was familiar with an article Kavanaugh's wrote that could become relevant to SCOTUS as special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of the Trump campaign unfolds -- a 2009 law review article in which Kavanaugh argued that sitting presidents are above the law.
"The indictment and trial of a sitting president ... would cripple the federal government, rendering it unable to function with credibility in either the international or domestic areas," Kavanaugh wrote. "Such an outcome would ill serve the public interest, especially in times of financial or national security crisis."

Presidents Ergodan and Putin would agree with Kavanaugh. Most dictators would.

#3 | Posted by danni at 2018-07-10 10:49 AM | Reply

"This should assuage leftist fears"

it doesn't gfy

#4 | Posted by klifferd at 2018-07-10 11:00 AM | Reply

*shock*

You mean reality TV show competitions are rigged?

#5 | Posted by sentinel at 2018-07-10 11:16 AM | Reply

*shock*

You mean reality TV show competitions are rigged?

#6 | Posted by sentinel at 2018-07-10 11:17 AM | Reply

Sold his soul did he??? Sad Kennedy real sad.

#7 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-07-10 11:34 AM | Reply

The speculation is that Kennedy's son who is a target of the Mueller investigation will be pardoned by Dotard.

#8 | Posted by 726 at 2018-07-10 12:03 PM | Reply

"The indictment and trial of a sitting president ... would cripple the federal government, rendering it unable to function with credibility in either the international or domestic areas," Kavanaugh wrote.

Spoken like a true criminal. How about the President doesn't commit crimes, that is how government would function best.

#9 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2018-07-10 01:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The speculation also is that Kennedy has secretly developed the ability to move his mind to another body, but only that of one he has spent time grooming as a law clerk. This deal will allow Kennedy to live on as a justice perhaps forever.

But you know how worthwhile speculation is, right 726?

#10 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-07-10 01:16 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

" a 2009 law review article in which Kavanaugh argued that sitting presidents are above the law."

aka a dictator.

#11 | Posted by danni at 2018-07-10 02:03 PM | Reply

#10 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

I'm not surprised people like you don't care.

But when the Democrats have the White House, whatever they do, no matter how nefarious, I expect you to not say a damn thing. Ever.

#12 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-07-10 02:09 PM | Reply

I'm not surprised people like you don't care.
But when the Democrats have the White House, whatever they do, no matter how nefarious, I expect you to not say a damn thing. Ever. - #12 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-07-10 02:09 PM

I care a lot. Mostly about evidence at this point.
I'm afraid I'll disappoint you and continue to be consistent instead. If someone says in 2020 that President Biden acted inappropriately with a staffer in the past, I'll ask to see the evidence, or at least the outcome of the trial. I am against trying anyone in the court of public opinion, just as I was with Senator Franken. Speculation, posed as "truth", is damaging to the country.

#13 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-07-10 02:25 PM | Reply

"The speculation is that Kennedy's son who is a target of the Mueller investigation will be pardoned by Dotard."

That would then constitute a crime, would it not? Quid pro quo.

#14 | Posted by danni at 2018-07-10 02:36 PM | Reply

Liberal delusions...

#15 | Posted by MURPHY at 2018-07-10 02:56 PM | Reply

"The speculation is that Kennedy's son who is a target of the Mueller investigation will be pardoned by Dotard."
That would then constitute a crime, would it not? Quid pro quo.

#14 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2018-07-10 02:36 PM | FLAG:

OMG Danni, the case cracker! I'm sure that Kennedy missed that one and thought that no one would connect the dots. He was not thinking about inspector Danni though. I'm convinced, Kavaneugh is toast.

#16 | Posted by fishpaw at 2018-07-10 02:59 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I care a lot. Mostly about evidence at this point.
I'm afraid I'll disappoint you and continue to be consistent instead. If someone says in 2020 that President Biden acted inappropriately with a staffer in the past, I'll ask to see the evidence, or at least the outcome of the trial. I am against trying anyone in the court of public opinion, just as I was with Senator Franken. Speculation, posed as "truth", is damaging to the country.

#13 | POSTED BY Comrade Avigdore T 2018-07-10

So you care about evidence huh??? Even if it's evidence that proves your president and your side is guilty of treason against the United States of America?

Or will you just scream "Fake News" like always?

I think we all know the answer, as there is no way in hell you will accept any evidence that your side and the scumbags that lead it are guilty of said crimes.

#17 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2018-07-10 03:00 PM | Reply

CNN "Hey 726, do you like Tunafish?"

726: "Sure"

CNN: "In an exclusive interview 726 did not deny that he hosted birthday parties for adolescent boys with PeeWee Herman."

Busted!

#18 | Posted by fishpaw at 2018-07-10 03:06 PM | Reply

I think we all know the answer, as there is no way in hell you will accept any evidence that your side and the scumbags that lead it are guilty of said crimes.

#17 | POSTED BY ABORTED_MONSON AT 2018-07-10 03:00 PM | FLAG:

More like you won't accept the fact that there is no evidence of a crime which is really because you won't accept that your Gal lost the election.

#19 | Posted by fishpaw at 2018-07-10 03:09 PM | Reply

This should assuage leftist fears since they liked Kennedy and would like someone like him in that position. So how many DEM Senators are going to vote for Kavanaugh?

#2 | Posted by jamesgelliott

Howbout the same as the number of repubs who voted for obama's last supreme court selection?

#20 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-07-10 03:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

More like you won't accept the fact that there is no evidence of a crime

#19 | Posted by fishpaw

Yeah people are in jail but there was no crime. Stick to fox news so you don't have to learn anything.

#21 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-07-10 03:10 PM | Reply

#20 That would be none, but you want to know what Speak? IT DOESN'T MATTER! Thank-you Dirty Harry, thank-you Joe Biden, thank-you Ginsberg, and a big ol special thank-you to Obama and HRC for making this all a possibility. You sore losers have got it all wrong, those are the losers you should be pissed at, those are the ------ that brought on all this misery for you. Go protest their houses, yell at them when they are out in public. I would not blame you a bit.

#22 | Posted by fishpaw at 2018-07-10 03:15 PM | Reply

#20 That would be none, but you want to know what Speak? IT DOESN'T MATTER! Thank-you Dirty Harry, thank-you Joe Biden, thank-you Ginsberg, and a big ol special thank-you to Obama and HRC for making this all a possibility. You sore losers have got it all wrong, those are the losers you should be pissed at, those are the ------ that brought on all this misery for you. Go protest their houses, yell at them when they are out in public. I would not blame you a bit.

#22 | Posted by fishpaw

You say that as if everyone reads and believes the same breitbart conspiracy theories that you do. No one with a brain knows what the hell you're talking about.

#23 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-07-10 03:19 PM | Reply

#20 That would be none - #22 | POSTED BY FISHPAW
Sorry Fishpaw, but "in the final vote,5 Republicans joined 56 Democrats and 2 independents in supporting the nomination of 'obama's last supreme court selection', Elena Kagan.
www.nytimes.com

#24 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-07-10 03:27 PM | Reply

Howbout the same as the number of repubs who voted for obama's last supreme court selection? - #20 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2018-07-10 03:09 PM
I doubt 5 Democrats are going to vote for Kavaneugh, but you never know.

#25 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-07-10 03:29 PM | Reply

#24 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Pretty sure they meant Garland...

#26 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2018-07-10 03:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#26. That's the joke. Garland was a nominee, not a selection. It's just a little pedantic teasing. Everyone knows who he meant. But thanks (no sarcasm).

#27 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-07-10 03:41 PM | Reply

#22 | Posted by fishpaw
You say that as if everyone reads and believes the same breitbart conspiracy theories that you do. No one with a brain knows what the hell you're talking about.

#23 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2018-07-10 03:19 PM | FLAG:

Hey Speakdumbly, they didn't vote for Garland because of the Biden Rule.
Because of Dirty Harry you can't fillibuster the senate vote.
Because of Ginsberg justice nominies can't discuss their views on a subject that might come before the court.
Because Obama did such a crappy job the GOP holds both majorities
and last but not least if HRC wasn't such a loser that she lost to Trump who you say is the word's biggest loser you would not be in this mess in the first place.

#28 | Posted by fishpaw at 2018-07-10 03:53 PM | Reply

CNN "Hey 726, do you like Tunafish?"
726: "Sure"
CNN: "In an exclusive interview 726 did not deny that he hosted birthday parties for adolescent boys with PeeWee Herman."
Busted!
#18 | POSTED BY FISHPAW

If you interviewed, 726 and asked him that, I'm sure he would deny it.

If you asked him in the interview that same question 3 times and he didn't deny it, I'd find it suspect and wonder why he isn't denying it.

Why don't you?

#29 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-07-10 03:57 PM | Reply

If HRC had won and Ginsberg said to her I want to retire but I would like to see my replacement be someone like me and Hillary said I would nominate so and so and Ginsberg said that sounds good, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Elections have consequences.

#30 | Posted by fishpaw at 2018-07-10 04:03 PM | Reply

" a 2009 law review article in which Kavanaugh argued that sitting presidents are above the law."

#11 | Posted by danni

Ask the constitution ddan. It plainly says how to deal with a criminal president.

#31 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-07-10 04:04 PM | Reply

You'll never get to the bottom of this. While there was no denial, you'll never get confirmation it happened.

#32 | Posted by eberly at 2018-07-10 04:05 PM | Reply

"While there was no denial, you'll never get confirmation it happened."

That's what Nixon thought.

#33 | Posted by danni at 2018-07-10 04:07 PM | Reply

" a 2009 law review article in which Kavanaugh argued that sitting presidents are above the law."
#11 | Posted by danni
Ask the constitution ddan. It plainly says how to deal with a criminal president.
#31 | POSTED BY SNIPER

No, it offers an option for getting rid of the President. That is all.

You should try reading it sometime.

#34 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-07-10 04:17 PM | Reply

This isn't journalism': Charles C.W. Cooke BLASTS single-sourced NBC News report on Kennedy-WH/Trump negotiation for Kavanaugh

Charles C. W. Cooke

@charlescwcooke

If journalists don't want to be criticized, they shouldn't allow themselves to be as a laundry service for political rumor-mongering. www.nationalreview.com ...
6:30 AM - Jul 10, 2018

twitchy.com

#35 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-07-10 04:18 PM | Reply

Hey Speakdumbly, they didn't vote for Garland because of the Biden Rule.
Because of Dirty Harry you can't fillibuster the senate vote.
Because of Ginsberg justice nominies can't discuss their views on a subject that might come before the court.
Because Obama did such a crappy job the GOP holds both majorities
and last but not least if HRC wasn't such a loser that she lost to Trump who you say is the word's biggest loser you would not be in this mess in the first place.

#28 | Posted by fishpaw

There's no such thing as the biden rule, it's just something republicans invented to justify shredding the constitution:
www.politifact.com
"
Did Biden really say he would be against the president nominating a Supreme Court justice in an election year when political control of the Senate and White House were flipped?

We wanted to use our In Context feature to lay out what Biden said back then outside of McConnell's sound bite. Readers can determine if it's relevant now.

Biden's floor speech was on June 25, 1992, more than three months later in the election cycle than it is now.

There was no Supreme Court vacancy to fill.

There was no nominee to consider.

The Senate never took a vote to adopt a rule to delay consideration of a nominee until after the election.

Nonetheless, Biden took to the floor in a speech addressing the Senate president to urge delay if a vacancy did appear. But he didn't argue for a delay until the next president began his term, as McConnell is doing. He said the nomination process should be put off until after the election, which was on Nov. 3, 1992."
But if you say something on fox news enough, idiots will think it's true.

As for why republicans control government, it's because they are the best party at cheating.

#36 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-07-10 04:20 PM | Reply

Is there a crime or potential crime in this?

Kennedy's appointment is for life....it's his choice to step down and nobody can pressure him.....any interference would be probably criminal.

But an assurance of something? It's corruption and wrong....but is it an actual crime?

#37 | Posted by eberly at 2018-07-10 04:21 PM | Reply

Hahahaha.

"UPDATE: And here's the inevitable backtrack, once the rumor has spread and the usual suspects are drawing sweeping conclusions from it:

Leigh Ann Caldwell

@LACaldwellDC
Replying to @LACaldwellDC

I've deleted this tweet because it incorrectly implies a transactional nature in Kennedy's replacement. I am told by a source who was not directly part of the talks that Kennedy provided Pres. Trump/ WH a list of acceptable replacements. (1/2) pic.twitter.com/ptxJmrbH9S
8:19 AM - Jul 10, 2018

#38 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-07-10 04:25 PM | Reply

"Kennedy provided Pres. Trump/ WH a list of acceptable replacements."

AK's list:
Brett Kavanaugh
Merrick Garland
Barack Obama

#39 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-07-10 04:30 PM | Reply

Liberal delusions...

#15 | POSTED BY MURPHY AT 2018-07-10 02:56 PM | FLAG:

Oh lovely. Her posts have become little pipsqueak farts in the wind.

#40 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-07-10 05:39 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Best argument for confirming Brit right there.

#41 | Posted by Tor at 2018-07-10 10:17 PM | Reply

The last Obama SCOTUS nominee who was voted upon: "Kagan was confirmed by the United States Senate on August 5, 2010, by a vote of 63–37."

7 Republicans are included in that 63 yea votes.

The method for removing a sitting president is outlined in the Constitution and it's called impeachment. Y'all know that the POTUS is in charge of the executive branch and federal prosecutors serve at his/her pleasure, right? Does anyone remember 1993 when Clinton fired 93 attorneys general (all of them) on the same day?

It did not ring true that Kavanaugh would say a President is above the law. He did suggest (in the Minnesota Law Review article, link below) that criminal and civil prosecution be delayed so that one person (e.g. a litigant or rogue prosecutor) could not distract the president from her duties until that President is out of office. He recognized that statutes of limitations may need to be extended. Also, if bad enough, impeachment is outlined in the Constitution.

Funnily enough, Kavanaugh did suggest in that pre-Obama law review article that yeas and nays should happen within 180 days of a judicial nomination. Congress has not codified that suggestion into law so we are still at the whim of the Senate. Also mentioned in the article was that both Bush II and Clinton were dismayed that their judicial appointments had been delayed.

Kavanaugh also argues for quicker Senate action for executive branch appointments. He also talks about mechanisms for removal of some "independent appointees", putting presidents on single six year terms, and reform vis a vis war powers.

He comes off as well reasoned and easy to read. Don't take my word for it, because internet : www.minnesotalawreview.org

#42 | Posted by Nuke_Gently at 2018-07-11 05:12 AM | Reply

"Does anyone remember 1993 when Clinton fired 93 attorneys general (all of them) on the same day?"

Thanks for proving you don't have a clue.

#43 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-07-11 08:40 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The attorney general firing thing goes back to Reagan and includes what Clinton did. articles.latimes.com

Just because you whine more, do not support your arguments with supporting documents, and bully does not make you correct. It shows you are on today's left (and probably a millennial).

#44 | Posted by Nuke_Gently at 2018-07-11 09:36 PM | Reply

CNN "Hey 726, do you like Tunafish?"
726: "Sure"
CNN: "In an exclusive interview 726 did not deny that he hosted birthday parties for adolescent boys with PeeWee Herman."
Busted!
#18 | POSTED BY FISHPAW AT 2018-07-10 03:06 PM | FLAG:

Werking extra hard for Putin's Puppet yesterday.

Good boy. Means that it is hitting close to the mark.

#45 | Posted by 726 at 2018-07-12 10:33 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort