What Is The Process For Impeaching A Supreme Court Justice? | NBC News Now


>>– ON CAPITOL HILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.>>>WELL, AS LEIGH ANN MENTIONED>>>WELL, AS LEIGH ANN MENTIONED “THE NEW YORK TIMES” REPORT, “THE NEW YORK TIMES” REPORT, DETAILS OF ANOTHER ACCUSATION OF DETAILS OF ANOTHER ACCUSATION OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT AGAINST SEXUAL MISCONDUCT AGAINST KAVANAUGH. KAVANAUGH. A FORMER CLASSMATE ALLEGES A FORMER CLASSMATE ALLEGES KAVANAUGH EXPOSED HIMSELF TO HER KAVANAUGH EXPOSED HIMSELF TO HER AT A DRUNKEN PARTY AND THRUST AT A DRUNKEN PARTY AND THRUST HIS PENIS IN HER FACE. HIS PENIS IN HER FACE. LAST YEAR, KAVANAUGH DENIED LAST YEAR, KAVANAUGH DENIED THOSE ALLEGATIONS UNDER OATH. THOSE ALLEGATIONS UNDER OATH.>>ARE MS. RAMIREZ’S ALLEGATIONS>>ARE MS. RAMIREZ’S ALLEGATIONS ABOUT YOU TRUE? ABOUT YOU TRUE?>>THOSE ARE NOT.>>THOSE ARE NOT. SHE — SHE –>>NO, NONE OF THE WITNESSES IN>>NO, NONE OF THE WITNESSES IN THE ROOM SUPPORT THAT. THE ROOM SUPPORT THAT. THAT — IF THAT HAD HAPPENED, THAT — IF THAT HAD HAPPENED, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE TALK OF THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE TALK OF CAMPUS IN OUR FRESHMAN DORM. CAMPUS IN OUR FRESHMAN DORM. “THE NEW YORK TIMES” REPORTED AS “THE NEW YORK TIMES” REPORTED AS RECENTLY AS LAST WEEK SHE WAS RECENTLY AS LAST WEEK SHE WAS CALLING OTHER CLASSMATES SEEKING CALLING OTHER CLASSMATES SEEKING TO — I’M NOT GOING TO TO — I’M NOT GOING TO CHARACTERIZE IT, BUT CALLING CHARACTERIZE IT, BUT CALLING CLASSMATES LAST WEEK AND THAT CLASSMATES LAST WEEK AND THAT SEEMS VERY — I’LL JUST STOP SEEMS VERY — I’LL JUST STOP THERE, BUT IT’S NOT TRUE. THERE, BUT IT’S NOT TRUE. NOT TRUE. NOT TRUE.>>NBC LEGAL ANALYST, SORRY,>>NBC LEGAL ANALYST, SORRY, DANNY CEVALLOS IS HERE WITH US DANNY CEVALLOS IS HERE WITH US NOW. NOW. SO, DANNY, IF THESE ALLEGATIONS SO, DANNY, IF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE TRUE, WOULD THAT HAVE BEEN ARE TRUE, WOULD THAT HAVE BEEN PERJURY RIGHT THERE? PERJURY RIGHT THERE?>>IF THE ALLEGATIONS WERE TRUE>>IF THE ALLEGATIONS WERE TRUE IN THIS, MORE IMPORTANTLY, IF IN THIS, MORE IMPORTANTLY, IF KAVANAUGH LIED UNDER OATH, THAT KAVANAUGH LIED UNDER OATH, THAT COULD BE PERJURY. COULD BE PERJURY. THAT COULD BE AN IMPEACHABLE THAT COULD BE AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. OFFENSE. THERE ARE TWO THINGS GOING ON THERE ARE TWO THINGS GOING ON HERE. HERE. IT IT IS CONDUCT FROM MANY YEARS AGO IS CONDUCT FROM MANY YEARS AGO IMPEACHABLE? IMPEACHABLE? PROBABLY NOT. PROBABLY NOT.>>OKAY.>>OKAY.>>IT DOESN’T INVOLVE ANY>>IT DOESN’T INVOLVE ANY OFFICIAL CONDUCT. OFFICIAL CONDUCT. IT DOESN’T INVOLVE ANYTHING THAT IT DOESN’T INVOLVE ANYTHING THAT WAS RELATED TO HIS ACTIONS AS A WAS RELATED TO HIS ACTIONS AS A JUDGE. JUDGE. AS AN OFFICIAL. AS AN OFFICIAL. BUT, NOW, IF HE DENIES THEM, NOW BUT, NOW, IF HE DENIES THEM, NOW AS HE’S BEING CONFIRMED UNDER AS HE’S BEING CONFIRMED UNDER OATH, DOES THAT BECOME AN OATH, DOES THAT BECOME AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE? IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE? AND, REMEMBER, AT THE TIME, HE AND, REMEMBER, AT THE TIME, HE WAS STILL A FEDERAL JUDGE ON AN WAS STILL A FEDERAL JUDGE ON AN APPEALS COURT. APPEALS COURT. SO YOU DON’T HAVE ANY PROBLEM SO YOU DON’T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH, LIKE, A PURELY PRIVATE WITH, LIKE, A PURELY PRIVATE CITIZEN, FOR EXAMPLE. CITIZEN, FOR EXAMPLE.>>RIGHT.>>RIGHT.>>COMMITTING PERJURY THEN>>COMMITTING PERJURY THEN TRYING TO IMPEACH HIM LATER. TRYING TO IMPEACH HIM LATER. SO IF HE LIED UNDER OATH, YES, SO IF HE LIED UNDER OATH, YES, POTENTIALLY, HE COULD BE POTENTIALLY, HE COULD BE PERJURING HIMSELF AND COULD BE PERJURING HIMSELF AND COULD BE IMPEACHABLE. IMPEACHABLE. REMEMBER, PRESIDENT CLINTON WAS REMEMBER, PRESIDENT CLINTON WAS IMPEACHED IN PART FOR PERJURY. IMPEACHED IN PART FOR PERJURY. BUT I THINK A SLIGHT DIFFERENCE BUT I THINK A SLIGHT DIFFERENCE THERE MIGHT BE THAT PRESIDENT THERE MIGHT BE THAT PRESIDENT CLINTON’S PERJURY, I THINK, WAS CLINTON’S PERJURY, I THINK, WAS PROVEN BASED ON INVESTIGATIONS. PROVEN BASED ON INVESTIGATIONS.>>UH-HUH.>>UH-HUH.>>THIS, ON THE OTHER HAND, MAY>>THIS, ON THE OTHER HAND, MAY ULTIMATELY NEVER BE BEYOND OATH ULTIMATELY NEVER BE BEYOND OATH AGAINST OATH. AGAINST OATH. OR MAYBE A FEW PEOPLE DISPUTING OR MAYBE A FEW PEOPLE DISPUTING WHAT BRETT KAVANAUGH SAYS. WHAT BRETT KAVANAUGH SAYS. EVEN IF THAT’S THE CASE, DOES IT EVEN IF THAT’S THE CASE, DOES IT REACH PERJURY SUCH THAT IT REACH PERJURY SUCH THAT IT BECOMES SOMETHING THAT IS BECOMES SOMETHING THAT IS IMPEACHABLE IMPEACHABLE IMPEACHABLE? IMPEACHABLE? AND REMEMBER, IT’S NOT A AND REMEMBER, IT’S NOT A CRIMINAL STANDARD IN IMPEACHMENT CRIMINAL STANDARD IN IMPEACHMENT COURT. COURT. NO ONE REALLY KNOWS WHAT THE NO ONE REALLY KNOWS WHAT THE STANDARD IS IN IMPEACHMENT STANDARD IS IN IMPEACHMENT COURT. COURT.>>YEAH.>>YEAH.>>BUT ULTIMATELY, IT COULD>>BUT ULTIMATELY, IT COULD POTENTIALLY BE IMPEACHABLE. POTENTIALLY BE IMPEACHABLE. ALL LIKELIHOOD, THAT STILL SEEMS ALL LIKELIHOOD, THAT STILL SEEMS LIKE A LONG SHOT. LIKE A LONG SHOT.>>I WAS GOING TO SAY, LEIGH ANN>>I WAS GOING TO SAY, LEIGH ANN CALDWELL SAYING THEY’RE ALREADY CALDWELL SAYING THEY’RE ALREADY DEALING WITH POTENTIAL DEALING WITH POTENTIAL IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT. IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT. THEY NEED TO ADD THIS ON TOP OF THEY NEED TO ADD THIS ON TOP OF THE PILE. THE PILE. JUST SEEMS LIKE A LOT FROM A JUST SEEMS LIKE A LOT FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, IT SOUNDS LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, IT SOUNDS LIKE ALMOST LEGALLY THERE MAY LIKE ALMOST LEGALLY THERE MAY NOT QUITE BE ENOUGH OF A CASE NOT QUITE BE ENOUGH OF A CASE THERE. THERE.>>THAT’S RIGHT.>>THAT’S RIGHT. EVEN THOUGH THERE’S NO BURDEN OF EVEN THOUGH THERE’S NO BURDEN OF PROOF ESPECIALLY FOR IMPEACHMENT PROOF ESPECIALLY FOR IMPEACHMENT LIKE THERE IS IN A CRIMINAL LIKE THERE IS IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL, YOU WOULD HAVE TO SHOW HE TRIAL, YOU WOULD HAVE TO SHOW HE DID LIE UNDER OATH. DID LIE UNDER OATH. THAT’S THE CHALLENGE UNDER THAT’S THE CHALLENGE UNDER PERJURY. PERJURY. PERJURY IS NOT SAYING SOMETHING PERJURY IS NOT SAYING SOMETHING FALSE UNDER OATH. FALSE UNDER OATH. IT HAS TO BE INTENTIONAL AND IT HAS TO BE INTENTIONAL AND MATERIAL. MATERIAL. IT HAS TO BE SOMETHING IT HAS TO BE SOMETHING IMPORTANT. IMPORTANT. IT CAN’T JUST BE ANY IT CAN’T JUST BE ANY INCONSISTENCY IS AN AUTOMATIC INCONSISTENCY IS AN AUTOMATIC PERJURY CHARGE. PERJURY CHARGE. NOW, OBVIOUSLY, CALLING SOMEONE NOW, OBVIOUSLY, CALLING SOMEONE A LIAR WHO’S MAKING ACCUSATIONS A LIAR WHO’S MAKING ACCUSATIONS AGAINST YOU COULD QUALIFY AS AGAINST YOU COULD QUALIFY AS PERJURY. PERJURY. IT IS DIFFICULT TO PROVE IT IS DIFFICULT TO PROVE PERJURY, ESPECIALLY, ESPECIALLY PERJURY, ESPECIALLY, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU’RE DEALING WITH WHEN YOU’RE DEALING WITH DECADES-OLD ALLEGATIONS. DECADES-OLD ALLEGATIONS. YOU HAVE TO PROCEED WITH CAUTION YOU HAVE TO PROCEED WITH CAUTION WHEN IT COMES TO ALLEGATIONS WHEN IT COMES TO ALLEGATIONS LIKE THAT WHETHER YOU’RE IN LIKE THAT WHETHER YOU’RE IN CRIMINAL COURT OR IN IMPEACHMENT CRIMINAL COURT OR IN IMPEACHMENT COURT IN THE SENATE. COURT IN THE SENATE.>>WE’VE ALL HEARD IMPEACHMENT>>WE’VE ALL HEARD IMPEACHMENT MENTIONED WHEN IT REFERRED TO A MENTIONED WHEN IT REFERRED TO A PRESIDENT. PRESIDENT. JUST REFERRED TO PRESIDENT JUST REFERRED TO PRESIDENT CLINTON BEFORE. CLINTON BEFORE. I PERSONALLY HAVE NOT HEARD OF I PERSONALLY HAVE NOT HEARD OF IMPEACHMENT OF A SUPREME COURT IMPEACHMENT OF A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE. JUSTICE. IS THIS SOMETHING RARE AND WHAT IS THIS SOMETHING RARE AND WHAT WOULD THE PROCEEDINGS LOOK LIKE? WOULD THE PROCEEDINGS LOOK LIKE?>>IT WOULD LOOK EXACTLY LIKE>>IT WOULD LOOK EXACTLY LIKE IMPEACHMENT OF EVERY OTHER IMPEACHMENT OF EVERY OTHER OFFICIAL OTHER THAN THE OFFICIAL OTHER THAN THE PRESIDENT. PRESIDENT. IT HAS HAPPENED BEFORE. IT HAS HAPPENED BEFORE. SALMAN CHASE, I DON’T KNOW SALMAN CHASE, I DON’T KNOW EXACTLY HOW YOU PRONOUNCE IT. EXACTLY HOW YOU PRONOUNCE IT.>>OKAY.>>OKAY.>>MANY, MANY YEARS AGO, IN THE>>MANY, MANY YEARS AGO, IN THE MODERN ERA, IT HAS NOT HAPPENED. MODERN ERA, IT HAS NOT HAPPENED. MOST OF OUR IMPEACHMENTS, THERE MOST OF OUR IMPEACHMENTS, THERE HAVE BEEN 18 IMPEACHMENTS EVER HAVE BEEN 18 IMPEACHMENTS EVER IN THE UNITED STATES. IN THE UNITED STATES. MOST OF THOSE HAVE BEEN FEDERAL MOST OF THOSE HAVE BEEN FEDERAL JUDGES. JUDGES. NOT SUPREME COURT JUDGES. NOT SUPREME COURT JUDGES.>>OKAY.>>OKAY.>>BUT FEDERAL COURT JUDGES.>>BUT FEDERAL COURT JUDGES. AND I THINK THE REASON FOR THAT AND I THINK THE REASON FOR THAT IS MAYBE FEDERAL JUDGES ARE IS MAYBE FEDERAL JUDGES ARE PERCEIVED AS SOMETHING THAT IF PERCEIVED AS SOMETHING THAT IF THEY’RE MISBEHAVING, THEY SERVE THEY’RE MISBEHAVING, THEY SERVE FOR LIFE. FOR LIFE. SO WE NEED TO GET ON THAT RIGHT SO WE NEED TO GET ON THAT RIGHT AWAY AND SOLVE THE PROBLEM. AWAY AND SOLVE THE PROBLEM.>>UH-HUH.>>UH-HUH.>>SO THAT COULD BE ONE REASON,>>SO THAT COULD BE ONE REASON, THAT’S JUST CONJECTURE. THAT’S JUST CONJECTURE. YES, WE DO IMPEACH FEDERAL YES, WE DO IMPEACH FEDERAL JUDGES BUT WE HAVE RARELY JUDGES BUT WE HAVE RARELY IMPEACHED SUPREME COURT IMPEACHED SUPREME COURT JUSTICES. JUSTICES.>>SO THIS NOT IMPEACHMENT RIGHT>>SO THIS NOT IMPEACHMENT RIGHT NOW PER SE, WHAT ELSE COULD COME NOW PER SE, WHAT ELSE COULD COME OUT OF THIS? OUT OF THIS? COULD WE SEE AN INVESTIGATION? COULD WE SEE AN INVESTIGATION? WHAT DO YOU EXPECT TO COME FROM WHAT DO YOU EXPECT TO COME FROM OUT OF THIS? OUT OF THIS? IS IT MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING? IS IT MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING?>>I WOULD NEF SAY IT’S MUCH ADO>>I WOULD NEF SAY IT’S MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING. ABOUT NOTHING. IF THERE ISN’T COMPELLING IF THERE ISN’T COMPELLING EVIDENCE TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER EVIDENCE TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER OR NOT BRETT KAVANAUGH LIED OR NOT BRETT KAVANAUGH LIED UNDER OATH, I WANT TO STRESS UNDER OATH, I WANT TO STRESS THAT BECAUSE THEY MAY BE THE THAT BECAUSE THEY MAY BE THE ONLY AVENUE FOR AN ONLY AVENUE FOR AN INVESTIGATION. INVESTIGATION.>>OKAY.>>OKAY.>>THE ALLEGATIONS, THEMSELVES,>>THE ALLEGATIONS, THEMSELVES, SO MANY YEARS AGO AND THE SO MANY YEARS AGO AND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS PROBABLY EXPIRED. PROBABLY EXPIRED.>>OKAY.>>OKAY.>>IN DIFFERENT STATES, IT>>IN DIFFERENT STATES, IT DEPENDS NOWADAYS. DEPENDS NOWADAYS. THE MODERATE TREND IS TO EXTEND THE MODERATE TREND IS TO EXTEND THE STATUTE FOR SEX CRIMES. THE STATUTE FOR SEX CRIMES. ANY STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS ANY STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS PROBABLY UP AND I ADD, AGAIN, PROBABLY UP AND I ADD, AGAIN, THAT IT’S PRE-OFFICE CONDUCT THAT IT’S PRE-OFFICE CONDUCT WHICH MAKES IMPEACHMENT VERY, WHICH MAKES IMPEACHMENT VERY, VERY DIFFICULT TO GET TO. VERY DIFFICULT TO GET TO.>>WHILE WE HAVE YOU HERE, I>>WHILE WE HAVE YOU HERE, I WANT TO SHIFT GEARS FOR A MOMENT WANT TO SHIFT GEARS FOR A MOMENT BECAUSE WE KNOW THERE’S ANOTHER BECAUSE WE KNOW THERE’S ANOTHER BIG HEADLINE TODAY, PURDUE BIG HEADLINE TODAY, PURDUE PHARMA FILED FOR BANKRUPTCY AS PHARMA FILED FOR BANKRUPTCY AS PART OF ITS MASSIVE SETTLEMENT PART OF ITS MASSIVE SETTLEMENT FOR ITS ROLE IN THE OPIOID FOR ITS ROLE IN THE OPIOID CRISIS. CRISIS. WE KNOW WHEN COMPANIES TYPICALLY WE KNOW WHEN COMPANIES TYPICALLY FILE FOR BANKRUPTCY, THAT MEANS FILE FOR BANKRUPTCY, THAT MEANS THEY’RE TRYING TO PROTECT THEY’RE TRYING TO PROTECT THEMSELVES AGAINST THEIR THEMSELVES AGAINST THEIR CREDITORS. CREDITORS. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR PURDUE WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR PURDUE AND PEOPLE TRYING TO GET MONEY AND PEOPLE TRYING TO GET MONEY OUT OF THIS COMPANY GOING OUT OF THIS COMPANY GOING FORWARD? FORWARD?>>THE MAGIC OF THIS KIND OF>>THE MAGIC OF THIS KIND OF FILING FOR A COMPANY LIKE PURDUE FILING FOR A COMPANY LIKE PURDUE IS THE AUTOMATIC STAY. IS THE AUTOMATIC STAY. AND THE AUTOMATIC STAY MEANS THE AND THE AUTOMATIC STAY MEANS THE INSTANT YOU FILE THAT PETITION, INSTANT YOU FILE THAT PETITION, A FORCE SEAL GOES UP AROUND THE A FORCE SEAL GOES UP AROUND THE COMPANY AND ALL LAWSUITS ARE COMPANY AND ALL LAWSUITS ARE STAYED. STAYED. THAT WORD, STAY, IN THE THAT WORD, STAY, IN THE LEGALESE, MEANS PAUSE. LEGALESE, MEANS PAUSE. YOU HIT YOUR PAUSE BUTTON ON THE YOU HIT YOUR PAUSE BUTTON ON THE TIVO. TIVO.>>CAN’T DO ANYTHING RIGHT NOW.>>CAN’T DO ANYTHING RIGHT NOW.>>ALL YOU FOLKS WHO HAVE>>ALL YOU FOLKS WHO HAVE LAWSUITS, BETTER GET READY TO LAWSUITS, BETTER GET READY TO LINE UP. LINE UP. NOW WE’RE GOING TO FIND OUT WITH NOW WE’RE GOING TO FIND OUT WITH THE LIMITED AMOUNT OF MONEY WE THE LIMITED AMOUNT OF MONEY WE HAVE WHO GETS WHAT AMONG THE HAVE WHO GETS WHAT AMONG THE CREDITORS. CREDITORS. IN THE MEANTIME, ALL OF YOUR IN THE MEANTIME, ALL OF YOUR LAWSUITS ARE FROZEN. LAWSUITS ARE FROZEN. THEY’RE IN STAGES. THEY’RE IN STAGES. THEY’RE IN THE PHANTOM ZONE, IF THEY’RE IN THE PHANTOM ZONE, IF ANYONE GETS THAT REFERENCE. ANYONE GETS THAT REFERENCE.>>OKAY.>>OKAY.>>THEY CANNOT — THEY CANNOT>>THEY CANNOT — THEY CANNOT PROCEED. PROCEED. THAT IS A TREMENDOUS WEAPON THAT IS A TREMENDOUS WEAPON AGAINST THOSE CREDITORS. AGAINST THOSE CREDITORS. PEOPLE WHO WOULD BRING LAWSUITS. PEOPLE WHO WOULD BRING LAWSUITS. AND TO THOSE STATES WHO DID NOT AND TO THOSE STATES WHO DID NOT SIGN ON TO ANY SETTLEMENT — SIGN ON TO ANY SETTLEMENT –>>RIGHT.>>RIGHT.>>– THEY ARE VERY FRUSTRATED>>– THEY ARE VERY FRUSTRATED TODAY BECAUSE THEIR LAWSUITS, OR TODAY BECAUSE THEIR LAWSUITS, OR POTENTIAL LAWSUITS, ARE ALL POTENTIAL LAWSUITS, ARE ALL GOING TO BE PAUSED WHILE THIS GOING TO BE PAUSED WHILE THIS THING WORKS ITSELF OUT. THING WORKS ITSELF OUT.>>GOODNESS.>>GOODNESS. SOME BIG NEWS TODAY, DANNY,

Maurice Vega

5 Responses

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post comment