October, 08 2018, 12:00am EDT
Government Watchdogs Call for an Impeachment Investigation Against Justice Kavanaugh for Potential Sexual Assault, Perjury, and Bringing the Judiciary into Disrepute
WASHINGTON
ImpeachBrett.org, a non-partisan campaign led by Free Speech For People, launched a petition today, following the vote in the U.S. Senate to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court, calling on the House Judiciary Committee to begin immediate hearings on whether to impeach Judge Brett Kavanaugh on multiple counts of sexual assault, perjury, and bringing the judiciary into disrepute. Evidence has emerged that Justice Kavanaugh lied repeatedly under oath to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee in his 2004 and 2006 confirmation hearings to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and in his 2018 confirmation hearings to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. Furthermore, during the Supreme Court confirmation process, the Senate received credible testimony that Justice Kavanaugh committed sexual assault in his past. The petition calls on The House Judiciary Committee to conduct a full factual investigation of these allegations.
"No one is above the law, not even a Supreme Court Justice," said John Bonifaz, Co-Founder and President of Free Speech For People. "There is overwhelming evidence that now-Justice Kavanaugh repeatedly lied under oath during this Supreme Court confirmation process and during the confirmation process in 2004 and 2006 for his position on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Further, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford has presented powerful and credible testimony that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when she was 15 years old. And, there are serious allegations from two other women that he committed other acts of sexual violence. All of this warrants an immediate impeachment investigation."
"Even though the U.S. Senate has recklessly confirmed Judge Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court, the evidence remains that he committed perjury multiple times during these hearings and during his nomination hearings in 2004 and 2006 for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit," said Lisa Graves, the co-director of Documented. "And now there is disturbing evidence suggesting that he may have committed sexual assaults, and once again, lied about it to the Senate. It is imperative for the House Judiciary Committee to begin an impeachment investigation of Justice Kavanaugh. A judicial officer who has committed perjury, let alone sexual assault, does not belong on the Supreme Court or on any court in America."
"This shouldn't be controversial, but U.S. Supreme Court justices should not be sexual assailants or perjurers. The evidence suggests that Brett Kavanaugh committed sexual assault in his youth, and continues to lie about it today--just as the White House emails reveal that he lied in his first confirmation process about receiving stolen documents. The Senate rushed through this process without taking the opportunity to conduct a real investigation of the serious charges against Kavanaugh. It's not too late for the House of Representatives to demand answers, and if warranted after a full investigation, to impeach Kavanaugh." said Ron Fein, Legal Director of Free Speech For People.
"It is difficult to imagine a greater affront to our Constitutional order than allowing a man who has secured his judicial position by repeatedly lying under oath to serve on the highest Court in the land," said Ben Clements, a former federal prosecutor and Board Chair of Free Speech For People. "The specter of a man with a history of sexual assault and abusive treatment of women making the most important and impactful decisions about the rights of women and victims is equally outrageous. Congress must begin an impeachment investigation of Judge Kavanaugh immediately."
Federal judges, including U.S. Supreme Court Justices, can be impeached and removed from the judiciary for committing perjury and other offenses. Federal Judge Thomas Porteous was impeached by the U.S. House and convicted (90-6) by the U.S. Senate in 2010 on grounds which included that he "knowingly made material false statements about his past to ... the United States Senate ... in order to obtain the office of United States District Court Judge." The Senate subsequently voted to disqualify him from ever holding federal office again.
In 2012, the New York Commission on Judicial Conduct determined that a state family court judge, then 65 years old, should be removed from office because of a sexual assault that he had committed at age 25, 13 years before entering the judiciary. The commission found that "[t]here can be no dispute that it would be intolerable for a person holding a position of public trust to engage in such behavior," and while "it would be rare indeed for conduct so remote in time to disqualify a person from serving as a judge," the judge's misconduct was "of sufficient gravity as to render him unfit for judicial office." The New York State Court of Appeals agreed. It noted that "the petition is based solely on conduct that occurred 40 years ago - 13 years before petitioner was elevated to the bench," but concluded that "[n]evertheless, the misconduct alleged is grave by any standard" and rejected his challenge.
The Framers of the U.S. Constitution understood that corruption in the process of obtaining a federal office is an impeachable offense. In the constitutional debates over the impeachment power, George Mason asked rhetorically: "Shall the man who has practised corruption & by that means procured his appointment in the first instance, be suffered to escape punishment, by repeating his guilt?" Judge Kavanaugh's perjury in the process of obtaining his current appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court and his former position on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, should, as with Judge Porteous, lead to his removal from the federal judiciary and should disqualify him from ever holding a future federal office.
For more information or to sign the petition, visit: www.ImpeachBrett.org
Free Speech For People is a national non-partisan non-profit organization founded on the day of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC that works to defend our democracy and our Constitution.
LATEST NEWS
Corporate Prosecutions Up Under Biden, Says Watchdog, But Not Nearly Enough
"The increase in corporate prosecutions is a welcome shift from the previous decline, and the new policy of rewarding corporate crime whistleblowers could go further toward restoring enforcement."
Mar 25, 2024
While welcoming a "modest uptick" in corporate prosecutions by the U.S. Department of Justice last year, the watchdog Public Citizen on Monday called for the "bold ramp-up Biden DOJ leadership promised early in the administration."
Federal prosecutions of corporations over the past 25 years peaked in 2000, at 304, according to the organization's analysis of various datasets. After the turn of the century, figures trended down, with a low of 90 in 2021, the year that President Joe Biden was sworn in. Since then, the numbers have started to climb again—hitting 99 in 2022 and 113 in 2023.
However, the impact isn't felt equally across the corporate world. Last year, "about 76% of the corporations DOJ prosecuted had only 50 employees or less, while only about 12% had 1,000 employees or more," the report states. "This is the continuation of a long-standing trend—about 70% of the 4,946 corporations the federal government prosecuted between 1992 and 2021 were small businesses with fewer than 50 employees. Only about 6% employed 1,000 or more."
"Prosecutions remain far too few, and the ongoing overuse of leniency deals for big corporations that break the law continues to undermine deterrence."
Still, "the increase in corporate prosecutions is a welcome shift from the previous decline, and the new policy of rewarding corporate crime whistleblowers could go further toward restoring enforcement," said Rick Claypool, a Public Citizen research director who authored the report, in a statement Monday.
Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco announced the "DOJ-run whistleblower rewards program," through which an individual who helps the department discover "significant corporate or financial misconduct" could receive some of the forfeiture, in a speech to the American Bar Association's 39th National Institute on White Collar Crime earlier this month.
Although Claypool applauded the progress, he also emphasized that "prosecutions remain far too few, and the ongoing overuse of leniency deals for big corporations that break the law continues to undermine deterrence."
The report explains that "prosecutors use DOJ leniency agreements—deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs) and nonprosecution agreements (NPAs)—to avoid filing criminal charges against corporate defendants. Originally developed to offer nonviolent first-time individual offenders a second chance, such agreements now help the most powerful businesses in the world dodge the legal consequences of their criminal misconduct."
Previous Public Citizen research shows that "about 15% of the agreements historically involve repeat offenders, casting doubt on their deterrent effect," the report notes. "Most corporate repeat offenders that receive leniency agreements from the Department of Justice are large multinationals. Of the 14 corporations that received leniency deals in 2023, the majority (10, or 71%) had at least 5,000 employees or more."
Of those who took deals last year, the watchdog highlighted "generic pharmaceutical companies Teva and Glenmark, multinational tobacco corporation British American Tobacco, the Illinois subsidiary of telecommunications corporation AT&T, and the Swiss multinational technology firm ABB."
While calling out the DOJ for creating "the appearance that some businesses are 'too big to jail'" with its leniency agreements, Public Citizen also lauded Monaco's recent remarks about "delivering consequences for corporate recidivists."
"A history of misconduct matters," she said during the early March address. "After all, penalties exist, in part, to deter future misconduct. They're not the cost of doing business. So when a company breaks the law again—and it's clear the message wasn't received—we need to ratchet up the sanctions."
As the report details:
The first example Monaco provides of the Justice Department holding corporate repeat offenders accountable is Ericsson. Ericsson breached its 2019 leniency agreement with the DOJ to resolve allegations of criminal violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in Djibouti, China, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Kuwait. Following the breach—failing to meet cooperation and disclosure requirements—the DOJ subsequently prosecuted the corporation for its misconduct.
Other major corporations that have been prosecuted after breaching leniency agreements include the multinational agrichemical corporation Monsanto and the financial corporation formerly known as Royal Bank of Scotland, NatWest Group, which reportedly rebranded in part to dissociate itself from its past misconduct.
"The DOJ's fresh willingness to hold corporate offenders accountable for leniency agreement breaches is among the strongest and most necessary corporate accountability reforms implemented by the Biden administration," the report says. "It's also one that is currently facing its greatest test: Boeing."
Boeing entered into DPA in 2021, after a pair of deadly 737 MAX 8 jet crashes in 2018 and 2019. In January, a door plug flew off a 737 MAX 9 during a flight, resulting in an emergency landing and fresh scrutiny—including a DOJ criminal investigation.
In a February letter to DOJ leaders including Monaco and Attorney General Merrick Garland, Weissman wrote that "if the DOJ finds that Boeing again violated the law, Boeing should be prosecuted both for its original and its subsequent misconduct."
As Common Dreamsreported earlier Monday, Boeing announced that its commercial airplanes division leader will leave immediately, the chairman of the board will resign after the annual meeting in May, and the CEO will step down at the end of this year.
"Of course CEO Dave Calhoun should be dismissed," responded Weissman. "But for real and lasting change to occur, Boeing must now be held criminally accountable both for the recent safety failures and the... crashes that took 346 lives."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Boeing CEO's Voluntary Departure Is Not Accountability for Corporate Crime: Watchdog
"For real and lasting change to occur," said Public Citizen's Robert Weissman, "Boeing must now be held criminally accountable."
Mar 25, 2024
Embroiled once again in an alarming quality control and safety scandal, the aircraft manufacturing giant Boeing on Monday announced a management shake-up that will see CEO Dave Calhoun step down at the end of the year, the head of the company's commercial airplanes division resign immediately, and the chairman of the board depart after Boeing's annual meeting in May.
Calhoun, who said he decided on his own to resign, took charge at Boeing in the midst of the company's previous high-profile crisis—the grounding of the 737 MAX jet following a pair of crashes in 2018 and 2019 that killed more than 340 people.
Robert Weissman, president of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, said in response to the news of Calhoun's coming departure that "if Boeing had been held criminally accountable after the... 737 MAX disasters, the more recent quality debacles quite likely could have been averted."
Earlier this year, a door plug of a Boeing 737 MAX 9 flew off the aircraft as it ascended, causing minor injuries and forcing the pilots to conduct an emergency landing. More than MAX 9s were subsequently grounded to undergo inspections.
The incident prompted federal regulators, airlines, and journalists to—once again—closely scrutinize Boeing's manufacturing process, cost-cutting efforts, lobbying against safety regulations, and executive and shareholder payouts.
The Leverreported days after the January 5 incident that "less than a month before a catastrophic aircraft failure prompted the grounding of more than 150 of Boeing's commercial aircraft, documents were filed in federal court alleging that former employees at the company's subcontractor repeatedly warned corporate officials about safety problems and were told to falsify records."
The outlet also found that "operators of Boeing's troubled 737 MAX planes have filed more than 1,800 service difficulty reports—more than one per day—warning government regulators about safety problems with the aircraft since the fleet was allowed to resume flying after two fatal crashes."
Alaska Airlines, the operator of the January 5 flight, said in late January that it found loose bolts on "many" of Boeing's 737 MAX 9s.
"The FAA identified noncompliance issues in Boeing's manufacturing process control, parts handling and storage, and product control."
In an update published on March 4, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said its six-week audit of Boeing and Spirit AeroSystems—a major Boeing contractor—uncovered "multiple instances where the companies allegedly failed to comply with manufacturing quality control requirements."
"The FAA identified noncompliance issues in Boeing's manufacturing process control, parts handling and storage, and product control," the agency said. "To hold Boeing accountable for its production quality issues, the FAA has halted production expansion of the Boeing 737 MAX, is exploring the use of a third party to conduct independent reviews of quality systems, and will continue its increased onsite presence at Boeing's facility in Renton, Washington, and Spirit AeroSystems' facility in Wichita, Kansas."
Earlier this month, days after the FAA update was published, a Boeing whistleblower who raised concerns about the company's quality control practices was found dead of what local officials said appeared to be a self-inflicted gunshot wound.
Weissman of Public Citizen said Monday that "of course CEO Dave Calhoun should be dismissed" over the company's latest safety crisis.
"But for real and lasting change to occur," he argued, "Boeing must now be held criminally accountable both for the recent safety failures and the... crashes that took 346 lives."
In 2021, Boeing entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the U.S. Justice Department to avoid a criminal charge over an alleged conspiracy to defraud the FAA in the wake of the 2018 and 2019 crashes.
Public Citizen noted in a report published Monday that "such agreements now help the most powerful businesses in the world dodge the legal consequences of their criminal misconduct."
"Instead of facing prosecution—which would mean plea agreements or trial in a public court of law—leniency deals are negotiated quietly between prosecutors and corporate lawyers with little or no judicial oversight," the group said. "Proponents say the agreements are a streamlined way to effectively deter corporate crime. Public Citizen research, however, shows about 15% of the agreements historically involve repeat offenders, casting doubt on their deterrent effect."
Keep ReadingShow Less
NY Appeals Court Delivers Reprieve for Trump on $454 Million Bond
"They sure let him twist in the wind until the last moment," said one legal expert.
Mar 25, 2024
As the deadline arrived Monday for Donald Trump to pay a $454 million bond following a New York judge's ruling that the former Republican president and his company committed fraud, an appeals court in the state ruled that Trump would be permitted to post a vastly reduced amount.
The appeals court panel said the presumptive 2024 GOP presidential nominee could pay $175 million after the former president indicated he was unable to pay the full amount, having sought the bond from more than two dozen surety companies.
New York Attorney General Letitia James indicated earlier this month that she could begin seizing Trump's assets as soon as Monday if he was unable to pay the $454 million judgment.
Trump was hit with the fine as the result of James' civil fraud case against the former president and his real estate company, the Trump Organization. Judge Arthur Engoron found Trump and the firm had committed "repeated and persistent fraud," including by falsifying financial statements by as much as $2.2 billion.
The former president is appealing the ruling and had looked for companies to guarantee the full amount of the bond in the event that he lost the appeal, but with much of his fortune tied up in his properties, he was unable to come up with the collateral demanded by the institutions.
Trump said Monday that he plans to "post either a bond, equivalent securities, or cash" within the 10 days granted by the appeals court in order to delay enforcement of the full fine.
Former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman, now a senior legal affairs columnist for the Los Angeles Times, said the "pro-business" appellate court's decision was not surprising and was "reasonable," considering that "a bond is designed to secure eventual payment, not to financially wreck the defendant."
"In a sense the decision reducing Trump's bond and giving him more time is consistent with the 'treat Trump like any other litigant' credo," said Litman, "but they sure let him twist in the wind until the last moment."
James' office responded to the appeals court's decision by focusing on the fact that the full judgment against Trump, his sons Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr., and former executive Allen Weisselberg still stands.
"Donald Trump is still facing accountability for his staggering fraud," said a spokesperson for James. "The court has already found that he engaged in years of fraud to falsely inflate his net worth and unjustly enrich himself, his family, and his organization."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular