Ever wonder why?
Posted on 07/15/2009 1:27:35 PM PDT by disraeligears
Sessions just finished his second round of questions to Sotomayor in which he disclosed that Sotomayor served on the litigation committee while on the Board of the Puerto Rico Legal Defense Fund and that she reported on the litigation efforts by the Fund.
He in essence stated that she didn’t disclose this to L. Graham when Graham was questioning her about her involvement and knowledge of litigation efforts, including language from specific legal briefs filed by the Fund equating the denial of Medicaid funded abortions with slavery. Yesterday Sotomayor in essence said that she didn’t represent them legally but was just a Board Member.
In response to Sessions, she said that in her testimony to Graham she didn’t have a chance to divulge her participation in the litigation committee.
Does anybody have a transcript from her testimony yesterday with Graham? I don’t remember it as she is stating, so therefore, is there a chance that she committed double perjury regarding her:
testimony to Graham yesterday which may have misrepresented her participation with the Fund’s litigation efforts, and
testimony to Sessions today stating that she just didn’t have a chance to testify about her participation with the litigation committee?
If she has committed perjury, wouldn’t that automatically disqualify her?
Congressman Billybob
If I didn’t think Graham was such a weasel, I would think they set up Good Cop/Bad Cop with Graham saying she would be confirmed barring a “meltdown” or whatever he said, then asking the question, then the bad cop (Sessions) illustrates her mistake/perjury/error and then Graham could say she actually did have a meltdown and not vote for her. Then the other GOPers could one by one say that Graham was a moderate and if HE won’t vote against her how could any moderate...blah blah blah.
But...Graham is a weasel...so....probably not.
Of course she lying. She lies like a rug.
Ever wonder why?
Only if you consider this an answer:
“The fund was involved in litigations. I was a board member of the fund.”
Or this:
“To the extent that we looked at the organization’s legal work, it was to ensure that it was consistent with the broad mission statement of the fund.”
There was no mention of the fact that she was on the litigation committee as far as I can see.
Let’s suppose for a moment that she had perjured herself. Do you suspect it will disqualify her and she’ll not be confirmed?
Some of it turns on distinctions that don't make all that much difference: Sessions suggested that she was more involved in the litigation activities of the Puerto Rican fund than she had said she was (and she denied ever denying that she wasn't involved, if you can follow that).
But Sotomayor, who was a board member of the committee, may or may not have reviewed particular documents, but those who worked with her at the time, more than 20 years ago, told the Los Angeles Times when she was nominated that Sotomayor was sympathetic to the fund's mission. And Sotomayor herself hasn't said that she wasn't. Her association with the fund is clear. What isn't is whether that makes any difference now with regard to her judicial approach.
It’s not “perjury” if the people favor it. Remember Nixon said it’s not “illegal” if the President “does it”, and he was technically being sincere in that remark.
Only the Second Coming of the real Lord can prevent her confirmation. She is the people’s choice: the uninformed need representation on the high court too.
In the Clinton-Lott era perjury just means a liberal didn’t think he said what a conservative claims he heard.
THESE ARE THE RELEVANT EXCERPTS FROM HER TESTIMONY WITH GRAHAM (SHE HAD PLENTY OF ROOM TO PROPERLY DIVULGE HER WORK ON THE LITIGATION COMMITTEE... SHE ONLY TALKED ABOUT PRESENTING A MEMO TO THE BOARD WITHOUT EVER STATING TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE THAT SHE WAS ON THE LITIGATION COMMITTEE):
JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: I wasn’t aware of what was said in those briefs. Perhaps it might be helpful if I explain what the function of a board member is and what the function of the staff would be in an organization like the fund.
SEN. GRAHAM: Okay.
JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: In a small organization, as the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund was back then, it wasn’t the size of other legal defense funds, like the NAACP Legal Defense Fund —
SEN. GRAHAM: Right.
JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: — or the Mexican-American Legal Defense Fund, which are organizations that undertook very similar work to PRLDEF. In an organization like PRLDEF, a board member’s main responsibility is to fundraise. And I’m sure that a review of the board meetings would show that that’s what we spent most of our time on. To the extent that we looked at the organization’s legal work, it was to ensure that it was consistent with the broad mission statement of the fund.
. . .
JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: I wasn’t and I didn’t, as a board member, review those briefs. Our lawyers were charged with –
. . .
SEN. GRAHAM: And quite frankly, that’s — you know, lawyers are lawyers, and people who have causes that they believe in have every right to pursue those causes.
And the fund, when you look — you may have been a board member, but I’m here to tell you that it filed briefs constantly for the idea that taxpayer-funded abortion was necessary, and to deny it would be a form of slavery; challenged parental consent as being cruel.
. . .
SEN. GRAHAM: As an advocate, did you challenge the death penalty as being an inappropriate punishment because of the effect it has on race?
JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: I never litigated a death penalty case personally. The —
SEN. GRAHAM: Did you ever sign a memorandum saying that?
JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: I signed a memorandum for the board to take under consideration what position on behalf of the Latino community the fund should take on New York state reinstating the death penalty in the state. It’s hard to remember, because so much time has passed in the 30 years —
perjury is a resume enhancer for Democrats
Another question!
Did she discuss her activities as a board member during her testimony with any Senator other than Graham yesterday?
I seem to remember that she more than once tried to discount her participation on the Fund as being just a board member.
She doesn't answer 9 of 10 questions--she does monologues that ramble and go around the question.
I can't stand her!
She was asked if she was aware of the positions taken in certain briefs filed by the Fund. She testified that (i) she was not aware of those positions and (ii) she did not read the briefs. In support of that testimony she said that she was a Board member and that the principal role of a Board member was to raise money for the fund. The Judiciary Committee needs to learn more about the role of the Board’s litigation committee and specifically her role on the Committee. They should take testimony from others on those topics. If it turns out that, in her capacity as a member of the litigation committee, she was generally aware of the legal positions being taken by the Fund OR that she did review the briefs that were filed, her answers were both false and evasive and she should not be confirmed.
First off it has been known that she has been on the litigation commitee for a long time.
The question is what does it mean? It looks like she was not on that commitee when the controversial stuff was being litigated. I believe that her stay on that commitee was 6 months?
Look guys, she is really not that bad. We could have gotten someone quite a bit more liberal. That is why they are giving her a pass. The senators realize it could have been a lot worse.
I'm not.
Liberal = Pathological liar (therefore, prone to commit perjury)
Hey, look at it realistically ~ can you imagine someone like Leahy having a rational thought? He's outed CIA overseas assets who were then murdered. He's mailed off secrets to foreign governments. He's invited terrorists over for dinner. He kills babies in their cribs (or darned near).
This guy has no sense ~ he's not even a sociopath or we could outguess him and head him off sometimes.
The other Democrats on that committee aren't very much different from him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.