Will Jeff Flake Impact Kavanaugh's Nomination?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/30/us/politics/jeff-flake-kavanaugh.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fpolitics&action=click&contentCollection=politics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=sectionfront

On Friday, Republican senator Jeff Flake, with fellow senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, requested an FBI investigation of the allegations of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. These investigations will delay the vote for at least another week. While this investigation could turn up more evidence against Kavanaugh, many Republicans claim that it is just prolonging the ordeal and bringing more hate to Kavanaugh and his family. Flake himself has professed that he will support Kavanaugh if the FBI investigation shows that he is not lying about the assault.

1. Why do you think Flake requested the investigation?

2. Will these investigations actually have an effect on Kavanaugh's confirmation? (Remember, Republicans are the majority vote)

3. Many Democrats are complaining because the FBI investigation is limited due to time constraints. Do you think they should conduct a complete investigation? Why or why not?

Brett Kavanaugh: Trump's Supreme Court pick faces FBI inquiry

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/kavanaugh-nomination-slated-vote-friday-morning-senate-committee/story?id=58107011

After Dr. Ford publicly accused Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, people wondered whether or not the Senate committee would vote before she was given a chance to testify at the hearing. After she had the opportunity to testify, the new question arose as to whether or not the committee and Senate vote would be pushed for or if an FBI investigation would be opened. It was announced earlier today, September 28th, that the Senate would vote on the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court within the next week. The committee decision was 10 to 11, fully divided by political party. However, the Senate committee only passed the nomination on the condition that the FBI investigate the "current credible" sexual assault allegations leveled at Kavanaugh. This condition was introduced by Senator Flake of Arizona in the second meeting of the committee, after he was criticized by two women for his inability to state his opinions aloud in the elevator in the presence of media. The FBI will now have only a week to re-open the background checks for Kavanaugh and then the Senate will proceed with a final vote. It is still quite uncertain as to which direction the Senate will vote by Friday, October 5th, as multiple republican senators, such as Senator Collins and Senator Murkowski,  have voiced their support for Senator Flake's decision.

1. Did the two women who cornered Senator Flake in the elevator influence his decision to push for the FBI investigation or did he already posses this idea?

2. Will the outcome of the FBI investigation have any significant influence on the final Senate vote or will the senators still vote along partisan lines? Would it be possible for Kavanaugh's seat to be confirmed even if the FBI investigation did not occur?

3. How might public opinion play a major role in the final Senate vote?

Kavanaugh and the Truth... 36 Years Later

36 years ago, Brett Kavanaugh allegedly sexually assaulted Christine Blasey Ford at a high school party. Ford was 15 and Kavanaugh was 17. Kavanaugh claims to have no recollection of this event from high school. Ford just recently came forward with this information and it can potentially hurt Kavanaugh’s chances of becoming confirmed as the new Supreme Court Justice. There is big controversy about whether this will hurt him or not, considering the event occured when he was 17, 36 years ago. Ford has committed to testify in an open hearing about her allegation, which will take place this coming Thursday. Kavanaugh has completely denied all allegations against him and said that he wants to testify before the committee. However, Ford’s attorney made a statement saying that "they have also refused to invite other witnesses who are essential for a fair hearing that arrives at the truth about the sexual assault".

1. Even if the allegations are true and assuming that he never did anything else like this again during his otherwise brilliant and impeccable career, should one drunken high school incident 36 years ago prevent his confirmation to the Supreme Court?

2. Is it suspicious that this alleged incident was never discovered during any of the six separate FBI background checks that he went through?

3. Assuming it turns out to be true, which is worse, the sexual assault from 36 years ago or him lying about it now?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/23/politics/christine-blasey-ford-senate/index.html

Article Link: https://www.wsj.com/articles/kavanaugh-confirmation-process-encounters-more-uncertainty-1537798999

Brett Michael Kavanuagh. Liar or victim. Does he have anything to hide????????? Regardless, in watching the senate hearings what is supposed to be a bipartisan investigation into the qualifications of a Supreme Court Judge nominee has turned into a scene more fitting on the side of a racetrack at a house race. Democrats and Republicans alike have strewn from the purpose of a Senate hearing and begun insulting not only each other, but themselves through their inappropriate demeanor. If these are our elected representatives, is this what our country has become. Polarization in the populous can largely be attributed to political polarization on the Hill. Referring back to the analogy, it appears like Kavanuagh is a racehorse being vied for heavily by Republicans and opposed intensely by Democrats. Here's a quote from Kavanugh's interview on Fox News in which he attempted to defend himself from allegations of sexual misconduct, “I’ve never sexually assaulted anyone. I did not have sexual intercourse or anything close to sexual intercourse in high school or for many years thereafter.” 

1. How has the Kavanaugh hearing furthered the Republican-Democrat polarization in the current American political climate?
2. In what ways has the hearing exposed the differences between the two political parties? Further, on which issues that Kavanuagh holds a definitive conservative stance has the Democratic party attacked and the Republican party supported? (i.e. - abortion, immigration, power of the president, etc.)
3. Despite the allegations of sexual misconduct, do you believe that Kavanuagh is a suitable appointment to the supreme court? Alternatives?

Kavanaugh to Give Senate Calendars From 1982 to Back Up Denial

"WASHINGTON — Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh has calendars from the summer of 1982 that he plans to hand over to the Senate Judiciary Committee that do not show a party consistent with the description of his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, according to someone working for his confirmation.

The calendars do not disprove Dr. Blasey’s allegations, Judge Kavanaugh’s team acknowledged. He could have attended a party that he did not list. But his team will argue to the senators that the calendars provide no corroboration for her account of a small gathering at a house where he allegedly pinned her to a bed and tried to remove her clothing. 

Dr. Blasey, 51, a university professor in California who is also known by her married name, Ford, told The Washington Post that she and Judge Kavanaugh were at a house in Montgomery County in the Maryland suburbs with just a handful of other teenagers at the time. She said that a “stumbling drunk” Judge Kavanaugh corralled her into a bedroom, groped her on a bed, tried to pull off her one-piece bathing suit and the clothing she was wearing over it, and covered his mouth when she tried to scream. He has categorically denied the allegation.

Nothing from the calendars indicates whether he might have met Dr. Blasey. Judge Kavanaugh has told friends and advisers that he does not remember her. But senators are likely to question him on his drinking and partying during that era.

His friend, Mr. Judge, wrote a memoir called 'Wasted: Tales of a Gen-X Drunk,' describing a culture of blackout drinking at that time. He mentions a 'Bart O’Kavanaugh' who threw up in a car and 'passed out on his way back from a party'" (Baker). 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/23/us/politics/kavanaugh-senate-calendar.html 

1. How does the memoir ("Waster: Tales of a Gen-X Drunk") affect your position on Kavanaugh? Does this alter your perception of him?

2. Kavanaugh's hearing is being held on Thursday (9/27/18). Aside from the allegations, should Kavanaugh step down from the nomination because of his past behavior (the heavy drinking, partying, etc.)? 

3. Dr. Ford took a polygraph test - her accusations were truthful. Should Kavanaugh be required to do the same?

Cohen and the hush Payments

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45279047

In the beginning of 2018, Donald Trump's personal lawyer, Michael Cohen's,  office was raided by the FBI who seized documents related to the Stormy Daniels affair and discussions between Trump and Cohen about paying off others. This led to Cohen pleading guilty to violating laws during the 2016 presidential election, mainly his handling of payments to different people to stay quiet. The main reason that the payments were seen as illegal was because these payments were undisclosed to the FEC. However, in order for these payments to be required to be reported to the FEC, they would have needed to be made as a attempt to help protect his election name not his personal reputation. If the payments were made to protect Trump's personal name, for example to try and keep his marriage secure, it would not be required to report this to the FEC since it is a personal rather than campaign expense. As the Mueller investigation continues Cohen as agreed to cooperate and testify in exchange for a lighter sentence

1) Do you think that this was more of a personal reputation protection or was it more of an attempt to protect his campaign interests?

2) Do you think that Cohen is cooperating to the extent that he is to try and save himself (or at least reduce his punishment)?

3) Can Trump have charges brought against him right now as president?

Cohen's Payments and Trump Implications

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/08/21/how-the-campaign-finance-charges-against-michael-cohen-may-implicate-trump/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2d64383f992c

Donald Trump’s former personal lawyer Michael Cohen previously was indicted on two criminal counts of willfully causing an unlawful corporate contribution and making an excessive campaign contribution. Cohen has pleaded guilty to both counts, but he says both payments were made in order to influence the elections. Both payments for elections put Trump at the center of attention, possibly implicating the president. Cohen explained that he attempted to influence the candidate’s election and act on behalf of the campaign through the Daniels payment, which puts him in legal issues. If the Trump Campaign paid the money themselves and disclosed the information then there would not be any legal implications. For the McDougal payment, Cohen agreed to pay the AMI in return for the AMI’s purchase of McDougal’s story. The organization’s refusal to run the story is fully legal, but a recording between Cohen and Trump regarding the AMI repayment complicates the situation. Although Cohen pleaded guilty, Trump still has the ability to cite personal expenses if he is indicted.

1. What makes Cohen’s payments against FEC regulation?

2. Even though the majority of the article is about Cohen, do you think Trump himself violated

campaign finance regulations?

3. Do you think Trump has the ability to pardon himself if he is indicted?

The 25th amendment and Donald Trump: What the writers said

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/07/us/25th-amendment-trump.html

The 25th amendment was created in case of a president that becomes unfit and unable to govern. It clarified that the succession of a president would occur if the vice president and a majority of the cabinet agrees to his/her instability. The writers of the amendment stated that one of the hardest parts of the amendment was, “What do you do with a disabled president who doesn’t know he’s disabled or accept it?” In fact, there is no real answer to this question as the amendment is written vaguely because there are so many things that could happen to a president. When it comes to the question on Trump’s ability to be president, many of the writers have said that “Donald Trump is unfit to be president — but he is not unable. In fact, he’s very able to carry out all of the terrible things he promised he would do” In our US government class, we will study the constitution and amendmendments that govern our lives. One of the most recurring problems in the US government is how the constitution and written legislation is interpreted, and this article tries to look into the writers’ interpretation of that amendment.

1. Even though the writers think that Donald Trump does not fit the criteria for being removed from office, do you think he should?
2. Was the 25th amendment more about presidents being physically unable to rule or about mentally unfit?
3. What is the process of replacing the president according to the 25th amendment?

The Recent Leftward Shift of the Democratic Party

Take a look at the full article

In the last one and ½ months Fox News has published 5 stories about “democratic-socialists”.  
The articles focus on the idea that Democrats have moved far left with candidates such
as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Bernie Sanders (I-VM).  The Democratic Socialists
of America (DSA) are not a political party, but do have key beliefs on their website including
“universal housing and health care, free public college education, and an economy where the
worker is the priority.”  An ASU professor calls the DSA “pragmatic” and reinforces the negative
connotation of socialism while saying  the DSA must be “anti-socialist” in order to be popular.
The article points out that any reference to Cold War anti-communist fervor is a winning strategy,
especially by tapping into a sentiment that Democrats will create a government that “ hands over
all aspects of our lives to a government that can barely provide services competently.”  That being
said, the DSA claims that they have won 22 out of 30 elections in the last year. Ocasio-Cortez’s
primary victory to take a solidly Democratic seat in the House this fall reflects the idea that
Democratic Socialists will work from “within the Democratic establishment” to push their
agenda of increasing the power of “labor and the left.”  The Democratic Party remembers
the divide between Hillary and Bernie supporters, with the party still somewhat searching for
its identity. As such, it’s not surprising that a DNC spokesperson said, the DNC's mission is
to elect Democrats from the school board to the oval office, and we welcome the help of all
organizations to achieve that goal.” It remains to be seen how much the party moves to the
left and how that plays out in 2018 and beyond.

1. Do you think moving to the left will be a winning strategy for the Democratic Party

(be specific in your references/examples)?

2. Is the DSA a fringe organization or does it have significant influence on the political process?

3. Has the Democratic Party moved to the left since the 1980s/1990s (toughest question

because the article doesn’t address this)?