Democrats’ ‘Extreme Distortion’

Legal Experts And Fact Checkers Call Out Democrats For ‘Extreme’ And ‘Disingenuous’ Distortions Of Judge Kavanaugh’s Writings
SENATE MAJORITY LEADER MITCH McCONNELL (R-KY): “[T]he hysterical attacks haven’t gotten any less desperate, or any more sensible. No sooner are these silly attacks launched than they’re beaten back by the facts. One of the flavors of the week was this outlandish claim that -- in law review articles he wrote 10 and 20 years ago -- Judge Kavanaugh supposedly said that sitting presidents cannot be held accountable under the law. Some far-left special interests claimed he said that. So did some Congressional Democrats. Perfect conspiracy theory catnip for their far-left base. The only problem was, it isn’t true.” (Sen. McConnell, Floor Remarks, 7/11/2018)

Dems’ Claims Exposed As ‘Democrats’ ‘Extreme Distortion’’
WASHINGTON POST’S FACT CHECKER: “To say Kavanaugh is Trump’s ‘get-out-of-jail free card’ is an extreme distortion of what he’s written.” (“Does Brett Kavanaugh Think The President Is Immune From Criminal Charges?,” The Washington Post’s Fact Checker Blog, 7/11/2018)

Even POLITIFACT Says: “Democrats aren’t telling the full story about what Kavanaugh said.” (“Trump’s Supreme Court Pick Said Presidents Shouldn’t Be Investigated, Schumer Said,” Politifact, 7/10/2018)

• “Schumer is plucking one part of what Kavanaugh wrote in a 2009 Minnesota law review paper without recapping his comments in full. Kavanaugh wrote that civil suits and criminal investigations take away from a president’s focus on his or her work responsibilities. He didn’t call for the court to take away the power to investigate the president; he said that Congress could consider writing a law to exempt the president.” (“Trump’s Supreme Court Pick Said Presidents Shouldn’t Be Investigated, Schumer Said,” Politifact, 7/10/2018)
• “Law professors told us it was important to put Kavanaugh’s 2009 comments in context…. ‘Schumer is using that notion — that in general, it is bad policy to allow presidents to be pursued by prosecutors while in office — to imply that Kavanaugh thinks Trump shouldn’t be investigated, and to question how he would rule as a judge,’ said Michigan State University law professor Brian Kalt. ‘That is disingenuous, because Kavanaugh was calling for Congress to pass a statute granting immunity. They have passed no such statute, and it is not reasonable to suggest that Kavanaugh as a judge would ignore that fact.’” (“Trump’s Supreme Court Pick Said Presidents Shouldn’t Be Investigated, Schumer Said,” Politifact, 7/10/2018)

Democrats’ Misleading Assertions ‘Can Easily Be Refuted’
NOAH FELDMAN, Harvard Law Professor: “Some Democrats and advocacy groups are saying President Donald Trump picked Judge Brett Kavanaugh as his second nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court because of Kavanaugh’s view that a president shouldn’t be indicted while in office. It’s important that not become the narrative of the Democrats’ opposition, because it can easily be refuted.” (Noah Feldman, “Kavanaugh’s Papers Don’t Help Trump Avoid Indictment,” Bloomberg Opinion, 7/10/2018)

NOAH FELDMAN: “Properly understood, Kavanaugh’s expressed views actually support the opposite conclusion: that the president can be investigated and maybe even indicted unless Congress passes a law saying he can’t — which Congress has not done.” (Noah Feldman, “Kavanaugh’s Papers Don’t Help Trump Avoid Indictment,” Bloomberg Opinion, 7/10/2018)

• FELDMAN: “[F]rom a legal and constitutional perspective, Kavanaugh wasn’t saying that the courts should find that the president shouldn’t be investigated or indicted. To the contrary. He was saying that Congress should pass a law ensuring that result, because without it, the president was open to being investigated — and maybe even indicted. Pause to take that in. If a law by Congress is necessary to fix the problem, it follows that without such a law, it is perfectly permissible under the Constitution to investigate a sitting president, as Starr did.” (Noah Feldman, “Kavanaugh’s Papers Don’t Help Trump Avoid Indictment,” Bloomberg Opinion, 7/10/2018, Emphasis in original)

ASHA RANGAPPA, Yale’s Jackson Institute for Global Affairs Law Professor: “Kavanaugh’s law review article does not reach legal conclusions on issues regarding civil and criminal cases involving a president. Rather, he comes to the fairly simple — and somewhat obvious — factual conclusion that legal battles can be time-consuming and distracting for the chief executive. Kavanaugh recommends that Congress pass a law deferring such cases until the president’s term is complete.” (Asha Rangappa, Op-Ed, “No, The Trump-Russia Investigation Isn’t A Conflict Of Interest For Kavanaugh,” The Washington Post, 7/10/2018)

• RANGAPPA: “At most, he is implying that the Constitution does not, on its own, afford such protection — but his article remains agnostic on that question. (Of course, in 2009, the article wasn’t dealing with Trump’s case but was instead based in part on Kavanaugh’s experience working as an assistant to Kenneth Starr under the largely unbounded independent counsel statute, which expired in 1999.)” (Asha Rangappa, Op-Ed, “No, The Trump-Russia Investigation Isn’t A Conflict Of Interest For Kavanaugh,” The Washington Post, 7/10/2018)

---

Tags: Democrats, Extreme Distortion To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!