Judicial Nominations

Thoughts on the Kavanaugh Racial Profiling Emails Revealed by Sen. Cory Booker

Conservative support for racial profiling is deeply problematic. But the e-mail leaked by Sen. Cory Booker actually shows Brett Kavanaugh advocating "race-neutral" post-9/11 security policies.


Sen. Cory Booker (D- New Jersey).

The big supposed bombshell of this morning's Senate confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was Democratic Senator Cory Booker's release of a series of e-mails on racial profiling in post-9/11 security policy that Kavanaugh wrote in 2001-2002, while he was working in the George W. Bush White House. Booker leaked the e-mails even though they were marked "committee confidential," and therefore not supposed to be released to the public. He stated that he would release the e-mails despite the potential risk of punishment, including even potential exclusion from the Senate.

I think Booker was right to suggest that this e-mail chain should never have been withheld from the public in the first place. There is no classified national security information there, or anything else that, as far as I can tell, needs to be kept secret. Terrorists did not need these e-mails to figure out that the use of racial profiling was considered as a possible tactic in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. More generally, Booker and other Democrats have good reason to suggest that the decisions on which documents to release should have been handled by a neutral body, not by former Bush Administration official Bill Burck, who is also a lawyer for several prominent figures associated with the Trump administration.

Substantively, however, the e-mails don't seem to be a major damaging revelation. If anything the contents should be reassuring to critics of racial profiling, myself included.

In the most notable e-mail in the sequence, Kavanaugh wrote the following:

The people who favor some use of race/nat[ional] origin obviously do not need to grapple with the "interim" question. But the people (such as you and I) who generally favor effective security measures that are race-neutral in fact DO need to grapple—and grapple now—with the interim question of what to do before a truly effective and comprehensive race-neutral system is developed and implemented.

The e-mail is part of an exchange betwen different Bush administration officials, some of whom apparently favored the use of racial and ethnic profiling in post-9/11 security policy, and others who opposed it. Kavanaugh quite clearly includes himself in the latter camp. He did, potentially, leave open the possibility that there might be racial profiling in a temporary "interim" policy. That is problematic, but somewhat understandable in the hectic, fearful atmosphere of the immediate post-9/11 period. The e-mail in question was written on January 17, 2002, just four months after the 9/11 attack.

Few mainstream judges and legal scholars contend that the government should abjure racial classifications in every conceivable situation, no matter what. A tightly limited, short-term "interim" policy might pass even the rigorous "strict scrutiny" standard the Supreme Court imposes on governmnt policies that discriminate on the basis of race and ethnicity.

What is most notable here is that Kavanaugh did not favor the routine, institutionalized use of racial profiling, which was apparently supported by some others in the administration. Had the e-mails revealed that Kavanaugh was an advocate of routine racial profiling, I think that would have been a serious strike against him as a Supreme Court nominee. But the messages revealed by Booker actually suggest the exact opposite.

I have long argued that racial profiling in law enforcement is both unjust and unconstitutional (e.g. here, here, and here), and that conservatives who support it are undermining the ideal of color-blindness in government policy that they claim to espouse elsewhere. The policy is also counterproductive in that it predictably poisons the relationship between law enforcement agencies and minority communities—the very people whose coooperation is often essential to effectively combat criminals and terrorists. See also this critique of racial profiling by my George Mason University colleague and prominent conservative legal scholar Nelson Lund. I take the issue of racial profiling very seriously, and I would not want a Supreme Court justice who gives law enforcement agencies a blank check in this field.

The e-mails revealed by Booker provide only a partial window into Judge Kavanaugh's thinking on this subject. But what we do have indicates that he strongly prefers "race-neutral" law enforcement policies. If Booker and other senators have material showing that Kavanaugh actually does support racial profiling, I hope they reveal it. But what has been released so far strikes me as far more reassuring than not.

UPDATE: Bill Burck has issued a statement condemning Booker's "histrionics" and claiming that the revelation by Booker does not violate Senate rules because the e-mails in question were cleared for public release by Burck's staff last night (at Booker's request). If so, there was no violation of Senate rules here (despite Booker's own statement that he was "knowingly" violating the rules by releasing the e-mails), though it is still the case that this material should never have been classified "committee confidential" in the first place.

NEXT: The Good-Humored Stoic

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It would be unfortunate (but far from unprecedented) if a hoped for “gotcha” moment merely ended up rebounding back on the revealer as one who didn’t quite understand the thrust of the arguments. What was it Mark Twain said, “it is better to remain silent and have people suspect you are a fool…”

    While I don’t agree with Kavanaugh’s politics I find the fight unseemly for the Senate on both sides of the aisle. He may be less of a demon that some fear. Certainly (to my mind at least) a thoughtful Jurist.

  2. So… Booker has potentially gotten himself kicked out of the Senate to demonstrate that Kavanaugh is actually an alright sort of guy.

    Interesting technique.

    1. Except he didn’t. The e-mails were approved to be released the morning before he went full “Spartacus”. It was a cheap political stunt.

      1. Ah. Definitely hadn’t heard that part.

        1. You hadn’t heard this part? It was stated right in the article.

          1. Yes, it *was* stated in the article. The part that was prefixed with the word “UPDATE”, which *usually* means it was added some time after the article was initially published.

    2. Both booker & Kam Harris were simply auditioning for the 2020 party nomination.

  3. It’s already come out that he was cleared to use the documents, and he didn’t risk anything. Link to that story is right on Drudge.

    1. Booker says he read from the documents Wednesday, before they were cleared.

      Should be easy to verify.

  4. How can you have any open discussion of an issue if all arguments will be made public and demonized?

    This insures we get terrible, terrible policies since nobody wants to be castigated for making unpopular arguments that one must make with all policies.

  5. The more the Dems fume and fulminate, the more Kavanaugh turns out to be a reasonable and thoughtful judge.

    That may be why they hate him.

    1. Borking worked with Bork in large part because he looked vaguely demonic with the stupid beard.

      Kav looks like the alter boy he probably once was.

      1. He was an altar boy.

        1. That his parents exhibited lousy judgment should not be held against him.

      2. “Borking” was no more than publicizing Bork’s own words. He was an extremist nut who didn’t belong on the court.

        Get over it.

        1. It was madness to nominate him in the first place regardless of his words. He failed his greatest test on Saturday October 20, 1973 when he fired Archibald Cox at Richard Nixon’s behest. He could have lived a saintly life everyday thereafter and it wouldn’t have mattered. When the chips were down he did not have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to power. He had no business sitting as a judge in small claims after that.

          Some people never face their test,for others it comes late in life – or early. Bork had his and failed. He should have never been allowed near power again.

          1. You know little about Bork’s role in this matter.

            1. I’m interested; what is the nuance here?

              1. A rousing defense of Robert Bork would be just what this discussion needs.

                The guy was a miserable jerk and a good little order-follower.

        2. And you think the fat ugly “wise” Latina belongs? What about the ugly gap-toothed Jewish lesbian?

        3. I think Bork would have been an awesome SCOTUS justice.

          1. Entertainingly, given the ruckus over Garland, Gorsuch and now Kavanaugh, if Bork had not been borked, Obama would have replaced him in 2013 and the libs would have achieved their long held dream of a 5-4 SCOTUS majority.

            1. The liberal (and libertarian, and moderate, and, increasingly, RINO) dream is a 6-5 Supreme Court majority.

              See you then, clingers.

              1. Why not go 95-5 just to be sure?

      3. Kav looks like the alter boy he probably once was

        He doesn’t look that healthy to me. Gorsuch looks like he could last 40 years, Kavanaugh looks like a heart attack on deck.

        1. You don’t think they gave him a physical down to every last gene, a heart scan, full body PT scan, not to mention blood transfusions from Dick Cheney’s secret warehouse of young children kept for blood and organ harvesting for senior officials.

          1. I believe you are mistaken, Cheney’s warehouse, at least when I worked there, contained only the folks he “mistakenly” injured while out “hunting,” I don’t recall any young children.

            1. Ahhh, you only worked in Warehouse A.

    2. ‘The other side’s tactics only make me cleave to my side harder, and hate them more!’

      As pure a partisan take as you’ll find.

      1. It would be partisan to stick with one’s own side even when the other side seems reasonable and rational.

        When the other side’s tactics include caterwauling and grandstanding, not so much.

        1. The thing is, all these things you are positing about one side’s reasonableness and the other side’s caterwauling is just showing you buy into your side’s partisan narrative not the other side’s.

          FWIW, I see scrappy Democrats standing up against abusive Republican procedures in order to block a nominee whose nomination should be delayed, and who they’ve managed to show despite GOP roadblocks has been less than honest in past testimony.

          Is it crap? Almost certainly. But no less valid than what you posit as undeniable fact.

          I try to keep a perspective. These Congressional shows are all fun and games in the end. And you didn’t accuse the Democrats of hating your guy for his virtuousness like Kevin did, so I’m happy to part as disagreeing friends.

          1. LOL, progressives and Democrats hate anyone who does not agree with them and slander them as racists and sexists and threats to humanity. Heck, your buddy Kirkland has been the motivation for me to collect my extensive library of hypocritical progressive incidents.

            1. I enjoy your sniping at your betters.

              1. Ah.. Kirkland. You made me log in just for this.

                Thank you for such a hilarious way to start my day. Never change.

              2. Because he does it better than you, I imagine.

          2. How has he been less than honest? None of the revealed information has contradicted anything that he has said. Please tell me one falsehood that has been revealed. I skimmed through things, and nothing stuck out at me as contradictory or even negative. However, I didn’t read all the pages, much less listen to the 13 hours of discussion yesterday. Please, give some examples.

            Also, even if there was a deviation, some of these opinions are from nearly 20 years ago. People grow and change over that time, and at least some of the ones revealed, he was being asked as a lawyer on matters of what policy should be, not as a judge who judges on what the law is. He is being asked about his opinions today. I would only count extreme differences as truly being “less than honest”.

            Now, the mass data dump from the Republicans. THAT is a reasonable thing to be upset about. I am quite concerned about if there is anything else that actually is revealing that was hidden in that haystack, and the attempt to make a haystack of data is shameful.

            1. None of it is opinions. I agree that’s never per se disqualifying like lying under oath is. (Though I differ with some on this blog in thinking that decisions you don’t like are a legit reason to vote against a candidate)
              Documents indicate he was involved in analyzing the Bush Admin’s torture policy. He testified in his 2006 nomination hearing that this was not true.

              Documents indicate he knowingly received hacked Democratic information about judicial nominees. He testified in his 2006 nomination hearing that he didn’t know how that info was obtained.

              Documents indicate he was pretty involved in shepherding the confirmation of Judge Pickering through the Senate. He testified in his 2006 nomination hearing that he was not primarily involved.

              Similarly, docs indicate he was intimately involved in the Judge Pryor nomination battle. And he’s testified he wasn’t involved in that one at all.

              1. It would be reasonable for Democrats to use that information — and the additional evidence likely to emerge from the record as Republicans release it now and Democrats release it later — not as a basis to land glancing blows on Kavanaugh now but instead as a reason to enlarge the court in a few years.

                The just consequence of Brett Kavanaugh’s disingenuous partisanship should be decades in dissent.

              2. Fake Sarcastro is fake.

            2. Kavanaugh absolutely lied, under oath, in his two previous confirmation hearings, about the material stolen from the Democrats.

              See this by a former Democratic staffer.

              Kavanaugh … was repeatedly asked under oath as part of his 2004 and 2006 confirmation hearings … about whether he had received such information from Miranda, and each time he falsely denied it.

              For example, in 2004, Sen. Orrin Hatch asked him directly if he received “any documents that appeared to you to have been drafted or prepared by Democratic staff members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.” Kavanaugh responded, unequivocally, “No.”


              1. Continuation:

                In 2006, Sen. Ted Kennedy asked him if he had any regrets about how he treated documents he had received from Miranda that he later learned were stolen. Kavanaugh rejected the premise of the question, restating that he never even saw one of those documents.

                Back then the senators did not have the emails that they have now, showing that Miranda sent Kavanaugh numerous documents containing what was plainly research by Democrats. Some of those emails went so far as to warn Kavanaugh not to distribute the Democratic talking points he was being given. If these were documents shared from the Democratic side of the aisle as part of normal business, as Kavanaugh claimed to have believed in his most recent testimony, why would they be labeled “not [for] distribution”? And why would we share our precise strategy to fight controversial Republican nominations with the Republicans we were fighting?

                Kavanaugh didn’t know or suspect the material was stolen? Then he’s too stupid to be any kind of judge.

  6. “Booker leaked the e-mails even though they were marked “committee confidential,” and therefore not supposed to be released to the public.”

    Defenders of “norms” here will react strongly to this I assume.

    1. There seems to be some question whether committee confidential has been a thing in the past. If it is a legit rule, he should face sanctions, as with anyone practicing civil disobedience.

      Of course, it’s not a real point because Booker was just putting on a show and the Chair’s staff was too slow to keep him from playing along.

      1. It is/was a thing. But that email was cleared for release this morning–before Booker built the monument to himself in the Civil Rights museum and declared its rightful location somewhere between Dr. King and Rosa Parks.

        1. Maybe so, but nobody told Cornyn.

        2. Huh. Looks like Booker is releasing ‘committee confidential’ docs that were not cleared for release as well.

          So the controversy is back on! Dems are claiming there is no rule for the cc designation. But I also don’t know whether there needs to be a rule or if the Chair can just do whatev sua sponte.

      2. Its ok. We now have a precedent in a hopeless cause that the GOP can exploit later.

        “civil disobedience”?

        LOL. He is an United States Senator in a Senate hearing. Not exactly Rosa Parks.

        1. Bob, you will not find me arguing Booker is noble. I mean, I like the cause if not the Senator. But yeah, not all civil disobedience is an MLK situation.
          And anyhow, as Onslow and I pointed out above, it turns out it ain’t even disobedience.

          I am interested whether committee confidential was a real thing before this nomination or not, but not so interested I’m going to do any research.

    2. Well, the norm is releasing documents, not concealing them.

  7. I’m assuming he just reflexively objected to the idea of race neutrality, without stopping to think about how it was being applied?

    1. The opposite, in fact. He was acting very concerned about policies that were not race-neutral, and from the discussion, he had considered the matter quite closely.

      I’m trying to figure out what is supposed to be the bombshell here, and I’m not seeing it.

      1. Considering that he just told a reporter to stop questioning him about something, because it was unconstitutional, (Speech and debate clause, maybe?) I don’t know that he actually considers anything closely.

  8. Borking worked with Bork in large part because he looked vaguely demonic with the stupid beard.


    1. “Bork’s testimony gave voice to what his beard already suggested: This man was not only markedly different, but he was proud of it. ” http://www.washingtonpost.com/archive…..out-beards

      “He is presumably the only SCOTUS nominee ever accused of possessing too weird a beard (that from Sen. Howell Heflin, an Alabama Dixiecrat who hinted that Bork’s Amish-style wraparound suggested a “strange lifestyle”),” http://www.salon.com/2016/03/19borked

      1. Haha. Not the strongest case, and no one is going with the demon motif you posited. But I can’t be mad when it makes such an amusing story.

  9. Having gone to Catholic School for 12 years during a period when only boys could be on the altar, I will say that “altar boys” were rarely angels!

    1. I find it remarkable that anyone is still talking about or enabling children to serve as altar boys.

      Some people stick with gullibility for all the marbles, I guess.

      1. Tolerant and inclusive progressive alert!

        1. Substandard person defending parental decisions that knowingly expose children to sexual abuse alert!

          Carry on, clingers.

  10. Kamala Harris is making her first stump speech now.

  11. Borking worked with Bork in large part because he looked vaguely demonic with the stupid beard.

    This is a new one, Bob. Long-time theory of yours, or a new one?

    1. I wouldn’t say he was dapper, but that seems a little excessive.

      1. That’s fair, Brett. His general lack of gussying up didn’t help, and may indeed have hurt him in some small way before the Senatorial stuffed shirts.

    2. Long time but not an original.

      See above for a couple of articles [contemporary to the nomination and recent] that discuss it.

    3. Actually, I do think that Bork’s looks, in addition to his arrogant demeanor did have a negative effect. He came off as a weirdo. And with a lot of his answers he didn’t do himself any favors. Like when asked why he wanted to be on the Supreme Court, he could have made some saccharine speech about doing justice or helping the disabled or whatever. Instead he said it would be an intellectual feast.

      It wasn’t just his beard, but I do think his beard (and strange features in general) added to the whole impression.

      Plus he looked like Victor Buono playing King Tut on the old Batman show. Who was, like Bork, a professor at Yale. Perhaps the Senate feared that, with head injuries, Bork could be transformed into a supervillain. Since the Caped Crusader seldom makes it to DC, we might have been in trouble.

  12. Helgard writes to Brett, “His opening words were something to the effect of, “Well I think Joel’s point was…”
    Brett responds, “Understood, I do not really care what Joel was or was not advocating or discussing.”
    Helgard back to Brett, “And my only point is …”
    Brett back to Helgard, “I still did not think anyone ever said the interim issue was the “only question” as your e-mail says … My only point was…”

    The issue in this email seems less about racial profiling and more about the general policy versus the interim policy, and who the hell said the interim issue is the only question?! You can’t talk about an interim issue without also talking about a general policy; I mean….freaking c’mon!! Schedule another staff meeting to talk about the previous staff meeting!! (But don’t cc Joel because no one cares about his opinion)

    If anyone is a victim here, its Joel. Thoughts and prayers to him and his family.

  13. Everyone is generally against macro stereotyping, commonly mischaracterized as racial profiling. Some racial profiling is necessary for common sense law enforcement, and even to analyze fact-intensive constitutional issues in areas such as the 4th Amend. See, e.g., Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 131-139 (2000) (Stevens, J., dissenting). Suppose ICE is aware that 2/70 of a farm’s seasonal workers are illegal/undocumented Mexican immigrants, it’s nonsensical to detain/target the farm’s black or white seasonal workers.
    But we should, and most do, detest inflated, generalized statistics (e.g., total incarceration statistics, w/out breakdown by crime, region, neighborhood, etc.) when used to justify traffic or other general stops. Effective border control post-9/11, w/common sense profiling (of all kinds), may have thwarted any supposed justification for curtailing liberties of all Americans. Instead, they told us to exchange liberty for “safety” because the federal gov’t couldn’t stomach potentially offending other nations and/or limiting immigration. Far from profiling at the border where true threats lay in wait, elected officials and bureaucrats chose instead to curtail individual liberties of American citizens and claim undelegated powers through legislative fiat because: “safety.” That period was nothing short of a fraud on the American people and a total failure of representative governance under our Constitution and we continue to feel its harmful effects.

  14. “I think Booker was right to suggest that this e-mail chain should never have been withheld from the public in the first place. There is no classified national security information there, or anything else that, as far as I can tell, needs to be kept secret.”

    What’s the standard? Is the only material that can be withheld material whose disclosure would threaten national security? I thought executive privilege was intended to protect the thoughts and opinions of individuals in the executive department discussing policy so that such discussions could flow freely and wouldn’t be hampered by concerns over whether every thought would become public.

    1. You’re closer to correct. Certainly confidential treaty discussions may not affect national security, but they remain subject to Executive Privilege. If Booker ever satisfies his unrelenting desire to be President, then his actions today portend a rough-go for his SCOTUS nominee(s), if any.

      1. That seems likely to depend entirely on how many Republicans are in the Senate.

        Unless Republicans control the Senate, a President Booker would seem to be positioned to arrange two or three Supreme Court confirmations within a few months of inauguration.

        1. President Booker????…Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha !!!!!!!!!!!!

          Stop it Rev….you’re killin’ me…!!! So when did you start doing stand up ?

          1. Rev didn’t pose the hypothetical. Not a fan of Booker, but he’s a serious candidate for the Dem nomination for the next 2-4 presidential election cycles.

            1. So, it appears you both are saying that the Democrats don’t have any serious candidates for President more qualified that Cory Booker?

              Other than his skin color, has he actually accomplished anything? I realized that worked for Obama, but still.

          2. After America’s lesser elements elected a person of Donald Trump’s caliber, no prospective candidate should be entirely dismissed.

            Any non-Republican president should be inclined to enlarge the Supreme Court. Harris, Booker, Biden, Gillibrand, Warren — take your pick.

            Barack Obama should be the first nominee, in my judgment. He is popular enough to be a consensus candidate, and his sound judgment has been demonstrated.

        2. Really?

          You think Sotomayor & Kagan will quit just as soon as there’s a Democrat to replace them?

          That’s, precious

  15. Ilya,
    Perhaps there are special rules for white houses that I just don’t know, but I would expect that discussions between lawyers on behalf of a client are presumptively non-disclosable under the rules for attorney-client privilege and work product. Which would explain why you need the client’s (in this case, the White House) approval before disclosure. If the standard is whether the documents should be classified, the answer is no. But I strongly suspect that wasn’t the inquiry. I’m never going to be in front of the senate, but if I were, that committee sure as hell isn’t getting access to my case files.

    1. I don’t think Kavanaugh was acting as a lawyer at the time. He was White House Staff Secretary.

      1. Internets say that was much later. 2003 to 2006. In 2001 he was office of White House counsel.

      2. Some of the documents are from when he was a lawyer, some not. They were all classified, and are being reviewed as requests are made to release them.

        My understanding is that, so far, no such request has been refused. But the number of documents and their mixed nature precluded segregating them before they were handed to Congress. Unless you want to hold the hearings next year, which I suppose the Democrats would not mind.

        1. Right.

          Release them when there is no time to examine them, then claim, “Hey, we released the documents.”

          What a load of BS. Your guys are scum, Brett – dishonest, lying, scum. That includes Burck and Kavanaugh.

          If Grassley had an ounce – no, a milligram – of integrity he wouldn’t allow this.

  16. All of these documents will be revealed when Democrats next hold the majority. If appropriate, they could use any bad information — and the efforts to conceal that information — to bolster the case for enlarging the Supreme Court.

    Until the Democratic Party has the majority, this is mostly noise from both sides. The Republicans look like obsequious matadors, the Democrats look like agitated whiners, and Kavanaugh looks like a feckless, result-driven weasel.

    1. So you guys want to pack the Supreme Court?

      1. It’s not evil if its their party doing it.

      2. It’s not evil if its their party doing it.

      3. The Arizona Supreme Court was enlarged a couple of years ago. Did you object, or are you a deplorable partisan mouthpiece for bigotry and backwardness?

        Carry on, clinger. So long as your betters permit, anyway.

      4. Yes. I do.

        If the GOP can play dirty then so can the Democrats.

  17. Senator Booker read the headnote/subject line and went for a publicity stunt without knowing the substance of the email. He never cared about the actual substance of the email. Merely having something with the words racial profiling in it associated with Kavanaugh’s name was the sole substance and purpose of the stunt.

  18. Anyone who thinks racial profiling is “troubling” is a liberal idiot who doesn’t belong near the halls of any power.

    1. Cast magic missile on them with your wand of keyboard war (-7 charisma)

  19. “See also this critique of racial profiling by my George Mason University colleague and prominent conservative legal scholar Nelson Lund.”

    Did Prof Somin actually read his link ?

    It contains serious heresy :

    Many of the efficiency benefits of racial profiling however can be captured by the use of other screening criteria such as country of origin (a characteristic that should not be confused with race or ethnicity)?..

  20. This is a heads up for the Rush Limbaugh show tomorrow. Todd Herman of Seattle is my local firebrand so we got a little preview. Todd has concluded that the Dems are getting so crazy, and so extreme (Sen. Booker being just one example) that President Trump will actually be FORCED to fire Mueller and Rosenstein pre-emptively, and sooner rather than later.

    The reason is simple. This is going beyond politics as as blood sport. Trump has to genuinely fear Mueller will be out to criminalize and destroy his family empire and his family.

    As Herman sets the scenario, the Obama administration unleashed open war on a president elect in 2016 by unleashing the DOJ to openly cooperate with Clinton supporters to fabricate the case for a Russia probe of Trump associates and Republicans exclusively, turning a complete Blind Eye and closing the books forever on the law-defying Clinton Foundation and email transgressions.

    Mueller has seized that commission and pursued it with a brutal and stunningly totalitarian style of legal compulsion unheard of in American history. Because Dems so dominate journalism and academia, they assume they can write history to be whatever.

    Trump has no choice. He has to fight scorched earth with incinerated to magma earth. You can’t argue with these Democrats, you have to defeat them, kick them aside. That may even take appointing a new special prosecutor to take the DOJ/Russia Probe abuse apart and give them a dose of their own medicine.

    1. President Trump does not have to fire Mueller, all the President has to do is declassify all the documents from DOJ, FBI, The State Dept, and the Intelligence Community, exposing the entire Russian hoax. Mueller will be forced to close up shop since there is nothing to investigate (even though no crime is identified in the charging documents to the Special Counsel.

      1. But if you expose a hoax that was hurting Republicans, and the media don’t report on its exposure, was it really exposed?

        1. Next to whiny right-wing law professors, Republicans who rant about Democrats such as Mueller and Rosenstein are my favorite faux libertarians.

        2. You people are insane.

          Limbaugh?? Really?? What next, Alex Jones.

        3. You don’t think Drudge or Fox would run the story?

  21. 1: Every single executive deliberation document should start out marked “committee confidential.” Then, when they’ve been checked, a Senator can ask to have that marking removed.

    As happened here

    As should have been mentioned at the top of the post, not the bottom.

    But deliberative documents should not be released w/o thought. Doing it, is a great way to make sure the Senate gets fewer such documents in the future.

    2: How many suicide bombings have been launched by people born in the US? How many launched by people born in the Middle East

    If you’re a complete idiot, you hide your eyes, and your thoughts, from such facts

    3: non-US Citizens do not have the same rights as US Citizens, and are not entitled to the same treatment

    So it’s flamingly dishonest to act like profiling for foreign terrorists has anything to do with racial profiling of US cops vs. US Citizens

  22. I supported racial profiling only during the 2002 Winter Olympics.

    Racial profiling is stupid with respect to terrorism because terrorist attacks are so rare that terrorists will are looking for any weakness to exploit and a system that used race would be easy to exploit. Of course the glaring weakness on 9/11 was the policy to allow terrorists into the cockpit!?! Seriously, what good could ever come from allowing terrorists into the cockpit??? In fact any time you have an idea that you believe is good but others reject as “stupid” remember that on 9/10 we as country thought it was a good idea to allow terrorists into the cockpit!

    1. Of course the glaring weakness on 9/11 was the policy to allow terrorists into the cockpit!?! Seriously, what good could ever come from allowing terrorists into the cockpit??? In fact any time you have an idea that you believe is good but others reject as “stupid” remember that on 9/10 we as country thought it was a good idea to allow terrorists into the cockpit!

      Speaking as an airline pilot then and now, you are absolutely right.

      The training prior to 9/11 was to protect passenger lives, which inevitably entailed doing that which the US insisted it would never do: negotiate with terrorists.

      After 9/11, all airliners got Intrusion Resistant Cockpit Doors (which, in another flight of stupidity, should have been installed after PSA 1771 in 1987), and our training changed course 180?.

      Now it doesn’t matter how many people are getting killed in back, the guidance is to get the airplane to the nearest runway where it can be met by armed force, and disable the airplane.

      Full disclosure: until 9/11, I didn’t suss how stupid our policy was. Almost everyone accepted what was.

      1. Have they stopped obstructing the armed pilots program?

        1. The Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) program is in full swing. The number of FFDOs is classified, but it is significant.

          1. It was in “full” swing before, but being deliberately managed to minimize the number of pilots who could get through the system by, for instance, holding only small, infrequent qualifying classes.

            How does “significant” compare to the number of flights in the air?

        2. The Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) program is in full swing. The number of FFDOs is classified, but it is significant.

      2. Almost everyone accepted what was… But it only took the passengers on UA 93 a few minutes to reject that Official Advice and improvise a better response. As someone said, “On 9/11/2001, the only part of our national defense system that operated effectively was the unorganized militia.”

      3. How many hijackers crashed planes into buildings before 9/11?

        1. Samuel Byck attempted to assassinate Nixon by hijacking a plane.

  23. I trained my airline pilot friend in very close quarters handgun basics and convinced him a snubby hammerless revolver works best when multiple people are likely to have a hand on the weapon as it goes off. Next best thing, any sharp object you can get a firm grip on. Next best thing, wires around necks. You can choke people out even from the front by twisting. I left out bludgeoning objects because he said nothing adequate was available in the cockpit. I was a gun-responding corrections officer in the Seattle jail and courts until I retired.

    1. Not hammerless, shrouded. I think there is literally no such thing as a Striker Fired revolver.

  24. I remember a time when THV comments were a forum for legal theory and questions, and Arthur “The Dancing Monkey” Kirkland was the sole voice of hate and fear.

    Wonder where it all went wrong.

  25. I like the truth in advertising of having the Democrat Party represented by an ass — but who knew you had to be one in order to run for president?????

    1. I like the truth in advertising of seeing you admit you’re an asshole by referring to the “Democrat Party.”

  26. Could you image the outrage if Kavanaugh had said that race could be part of a “comprehensive evaluation,” but that it should be “just one factor.”

    1. You mean if he treated law enforcement exactly like college admissions?

      Yeah, that’d be weird.

  27. The lack of substance both on the primary issue and on the confidentiality issue are but two reasons why, no matter how much Corey Booker wanted to announce his 2020 candidacy, he is not, after all, Spartacus.

  28. The lack of substance both on the primary issue and on the confidentiality issue are but two reasons why, no matter how much Corey Booker wanted to announce his 2020 candidacy, he is not, after all, Spartacus.

Please to post comments