whelan, ed
---
fail on cb ford, CRC PR
see roger severino
SEE ETHICS AND POL CTR
AMICUS DOBBS heartbeat mifepristone BS study
see bak 922 bad code format
---
AN 2 26
Conservatives, including a former clerk for Republican Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, are attacking President Donald Trump as he sues the government he controls for up to $10 billion… all of which would come out of taxpayers' pockets.
"There is a glaring conflict of interest with Trump being on both sides of the claim," Edward Whelan, a conservative and former lawyer at the Justice Department, told NPR’s Carrie Johnson and Tamara Keith about Trump seeking $230 million over FBI investigations into his ties to Russia and handling of classified documents. "It is outrageous that he and those answering to him would be deciding how the government responds to these extravagant claims."
A White House official admitted to Johnson and Keith on background that “these claims amount to unfinished business for the president.” Meanwhile Rupa Bhattacharyya, a former Justice Department lawyer who specializes in these types of misconduct allegations, said that “some of them are run of the mill, right? Postal vehicles get into traffic accidents, VA doctors have malpractice claims brought against them, people slip and fall in federal buildings." Yet even on those occasions, the most serious cases (such as those involving people who cleaned up after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attack) almost never amount to payouts of more than $10 million.
"Two hundred thirty million dollars would be an order of magnitude [23 times] greater than any administrative settlement the Department has ever agreed to in a Federal Tort Claims Act case," Bhattacharyya told NPR.
Like Whelan, Andrew Egger of the center-right publication The Bulwark is among the conservatives criticizing Trump’s attempt to personally pocket billions of taxpayer dollars. Egger pointed out that Trump allowed X CEO Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to cut billions in foreign aid to impoverished nations, particularly those that provide food and medical relief, on the grounds that this is best left to charity. Yet Trump is now contradicting that rationalization by saying nobody cares if he takes $10 billion from the IRS “if it goes to a good charity.”
Egger also pointed out that Trump was legally proved to have self-dealt in his previous “charitable” contributions, making it dubious that he would not actually keep the money himself.
“Trump had been using his personal charity, it came to light after a lawsuit from the state of New York, to pay his business debts, make political contributions, and buy things for himself,” Egger wrote.
Trump insists that he deserves the money.
"The IRS wrongly allowed a rogue, politically-motivated employee to leak private and confidential information about President Trump, his family, and the Trump Organization to the New York Times, ProPublica and other left-wing news outlets, which was then illegally released to millions of people,” Trump's private legal team said in a statement to NPR. “President Trump continues to hold those who wrong America and Americans accountable." Trump himself has said that “I've gotta make a deal. I negotiate with myself."
---
---
an 1 26
On Monday, January 26, Judge Patrick J. Schiltz — a federal judge in Minnesota — chastised the Trump Administration for its handling of immigration cases and ordered Todd Lyons, acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), to appear before him this Friday, January 30. And Schiltz is considering holding Lyons in contempt of court.
Right-wing media figures and supporters of President Donald Trump were quick to attack Schiltz, noting that he is a donor to the Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota and accusing him of a conflict of interest. But others are countering that the rules allow the judge to make such a donation. And now, Homeland Security official Harmeet K. Dhillon is having a heated debate with Ed Whelan of the Ethics and Public Policy Center over the matter.
Fox News' Bill Melugin, in a January 27 post on X, formerly Twitter, wrote, "@FoxNews has learned that Patrick J. Schiltz, the Minnesota federal judge who is threatening to hold ICE Director Todd Lyons in contempt of court & is ordering him to appear in court on Friday, appears in a 2019 list of donors & volunteers for the Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota, an organization that provides free legal advice and representation for illegal immigrants. Judge Schiltz was appointed by President Bush in 2006."
But Schiltz, in a statement to Fox News, said, "I have donated for many years to the Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota. I have also donated for many years to Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid. I believe that poor people should be able to get legal representation."
In response to Melugin's posts, Ed Whelan of the Ethics and Public Policy Center tweeted, "'A judge may contribute financially to legal service associations that provide counsel for the poor. A judge need not recuse merely because lawyers who accept appointments by such associations are also counsel of record in cases before that judge.' A federal appellate judge informs me that's the official advice to federal judges (set forth in a nonpublic Compendium of Selected Opinions, § 4.2-3(g))."
But Whelan is getting an angry reaction from Department of Homeland Security official Harmeet Dhillon, who is accusing Whelan of twisting the facts.
DHS official Harmeet K. Dhillon tweeted, "So you don't have clients and therefore zero concept of what it means to appear before judges who should have recused due to the appearance of impropriety. This is why you feel comfortable parroting this context free."
Whelan, in response, accused Dhillon of engaging in a "non sequitur" and noted he's "spent the last two decades promoting originalism and textualism."
Defense attorney Andrew Fleischman humorously tweeted a summary of the exchange:
*"DOJ: This judge has to recuse himself because he's donated to a legal service association that provides counsel for the poor
Whelan: The rules specifically allow this
DOJ: DO YOU EVEN LAWYER BRO."*
---
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/05/biden-trump-severino-trap.html
no lnx
Biden’s Justice Department Is Walking Into a Trap Set by Trump Appointees
A seemingly frivolous lawsuit could take down a pillar of the administrative state.
BY MARK JOSEPH STERN
MAY 28, 2021
From the day he assumed the presidency, Joe Biden has aggressively removed Donald Trump’s appointees from the executive branch to prevent them from sabotaging his administration. Biden’s termination of high-profile Trump holdovers, like the union-busting Peter Robb, has attracted the most attention. But the president has also fired holdovers who tried to “burrow in” to obscure agencies, many of whom were installed in the final weeks of Trump’s term. One such holdover, Roger Severino, promptly sued Biden after the president removed him and three fellow Trump appointees from theAdministrative Conference of the United States.
On the surface, Severino’s lawsuit is absurd. But he and his allies may know that. It appears that they have a grander plan: to destroy the very foundation of agency independence, giving the president power to fire any member of any agency—even those that Congress tried to shield from his control—permitting a future president to stack the entire executive branch with his own lackeys. That outcome would constitute a major blow to the modern administrative state. And bizarrely, Biden’s Department of Justice may be walking straight into the trap that Severino set for it.
Most Americans have not heard of ACUS, but the agency has considerable influence over federal regulations. Its council, a kind of board of directors, is made up of one chair and 10 other members appointed by the president. Only the chair must receive Senate confirmation; the other members do not. ACUS makes recommendations to improve the regulatory process across the federal government. Under Trump’s appointees, it laundered conservative anti-regulatory ideas approved by industry groups and Federalist Society leaders through the agency, giving them a false nonpartisan sheen.
It is no surprise, then, that Biden fired four of Trump’s ACUS holdovers. The termination of Severino, in particular, was predictable: A longtime anti-LGBTQ activist, Severino also worked in Trump’s Department of Health of Human Servicestrying (and failing) to legalize discrimination against LGBTQ patients. Trump first appointed Severino to ACUS in August 2020, then reappointed him on Jan. 16, 2021—a bid to burrow in Severino by restarting his three-year term just before Biden took office.
A series of clues indicate that Severino might have an ulterior motive.
Biden foiled this plan by firing Severino and three of his Trump-appointed colleagues in early February. Severino responded with a lawsuit alleging that his termination was illegal. That accusation is curious coming from a Federalist Society figure like Severino. The conservative legal movement has long supported the president’s constitutional authority to fire members of federal agencies. Under their theory of the “unitary executive,” the president may remove agency leaders at any time, for any reason. This theory casts doubt on the legitimacy of “independent agencies,” like the Federal Trade Commission, whose members can only be removed for cause, not at the president’s discretion.
In 1935’s Humphrey’s Executor, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the constitutionality of independent agencies. But that precedent has been on conservative lawyers’ hit list for decades. If the Supreme Court overturns Humphrey’s and adopts the unitary executive theory, then many powerful agencies that have traditionally operated independently from the president—including the Federal Reserve and the Securities and Exchange Commission—would become mere outposts of the White House. The president could fire their leaders and replace them with cronies who will obey his orders. (Progressives tend to support Humphrey’s because it promotes less political decision-making and protects experts from partisan pressure.)
Severino’s lawsuit, which contradicts a foundational pillar of conservative legal thought, thus raises a red flag.It seems unlikely that Severino simply wants his ACUS job back, which is, after all, a part-time, unpaid position. In response to Slate’s request for comment, Severino—who now serves as a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center directing its HHS Accountability Project—declined to say whether he intended to take down Humphrey’s. Instead, he gave four other reasons behind the suit. “I want to continue making valuable contributions to ACUS, the rules governing appointments should be consistent regardless of who is in power, current case law is on my side, and I refuse to be bullied by the President,” Severino told Slate.
A series of clues, however, indicate that Severino might have another motive: not getting his job back, but obliterating agency independence and enshrining the unitary executive theory into law. Severino is represented by Jonathan Mitchell, a conservative attorney famous for his union-busting litigation. Trump nominated Mitchell to chair ACUS, but the Senate never confirmed him. Given his deep ties to the legal campaign against independent agencies, Mitchell is the perfect candidate for an assault on Humphrey’s using ACUS as a vehicle.
Moreover, statements by Andrew Kloster, a Trump appointee to ACUS whom Biden fired along with Severino, point to a scheme designed to take down Humphrey’s. Public record requests reveal that when the White House requested Kloster’s resignation, he refused in a lengthy email warning of “legal headaches” to come. When the White House fired him, Kloster urged ACUS to deny the legality of the termination, demanding that his name remain on the official website. He immediately compared himself to a member of the FTC, the agency at issue in Humphrey’s. That same day, Kloster tweeted that “ramming Humphrey’s Executor” with “the unitary executive” was “the plan.” Similarly, Ed Whelan—who now works with Severino at the Ethics and Public Policy Center—wrote that his colleague’s lawsuit may lead to the reversal of Humphrey’s.
If “ramming” Humphrey’s is, indeed, the plan, then it is a terrible one. The fundamental problem for Severino is that ACUS is not an independent agency. Congress did not shield its members with for-cause removal protections. No law limits the president’s authority to remove them. Its members (aside from the chair) are not even confirmed by the Senate—unlike the leaders at true independent agencies, who are Senate-confirmed. And ACUS does not exercise the kind of regulatory or adjudication authority that often merits independence in the eyes of Congress. To the contrary, it exists to advise the president on executive branch affairs; it would make no sense to prevent him from removing his own advisers.
In its response to Severino’s lawsuit, filed on May 4, the Department of Justice eventually makes all these points to defend Biden’s actions. But it does not foreground them. Instead, the DOJ leads with a sweeping argument that strikes at the heart of agency independence. It argues that, due to the constitutional separation of powers, the federal judiciary lacks authority to issue “injunctive or declaratory relief” against the president.Put differently, the argument is that a federal court has no power to make the president reinstate a fired agency member. Under this theory, if a president illegally fired an FTC commissioner, for instance, no court could order him to give the commissioner their job back. The court could order back pay but couldn’t restore their employment.
This theory, if true, would end agency independence. A president could clear house at every independent agency, purging members without good cause, and no one could stop him. The sacked commissioners could sue for damages but not reinstatement. If the Supreme Court accepted this idea, it wouldn’t even have to overturn Humphrey’s. Independent agencies could remain on the books, but in reality, nothing would prevent a president from firing members he did not like.
Ronald J. Krotoszynski, an administrative law professor at the University of Alabama School of Law, told me that the DOJ’s theory “seems bogus to me.” Krotoszynski pointed out that if Severino’s removal violated the law, “his removal was without legal effect, void, and a court order should be sufficient to reinstate him to the ACUS governing council for the balance of his term of office.” He also noted that, in the landmark 1803 Supreme Court decision Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall held that a federal judge could order Secretary of State James Madison to deliver a judge’s commission. Marshall wrote that a writ of mandamus—a court order compelling an official to perform a legal duty—would be appropriate against Madison.
In light of Marbury, Krotoszynski speculated that a court could issue a writ of mandamus “against the president directly.” This order would compel the president to reinstate a fired agency member. But, Krotoszynski said, “that seems rather awkward and completely unnecessary.” Instead, a court could order the staff members at the Office of Presidential Personnel—who send out the actual pink slip—to acknowledge the member’s right to continue service. (The DOJ argues that a court order against the president’s staff is “tantamount to issuing relief directly against the President.”)
Krotoszynski’s argument is persuasive but contestable. In a 1997 law review article, Tracey A. Hardin examined this issue and arrived at the same conclusion as Biden’s Justice Department: The Constitution does not allow a federal court to order the reinstatement of an independent agency commissioner who was fired illegally. (Ironically, Tracey is now the assistant general counsel at SEC, an independent agency.) And the Supreme Court’s current conservative supermajority is extremely hostile to agency independence. It is all too easy to envision the conservative justices agreeing with the Justice Department, carving a huge loophole in Humphrey’s without risking the backlash of overturning it outright.
Which raises the question: Why is Biden’s Justice Department making this argument at all? It has a slam-dunk case against Severino on the merits; why try to duck the litigation with a far-reaching argument that could imperil independent agencies, which progressives and Democrats tend to support? The Biden administration may be walking straight into a trap that Severino and his allies set for it. It may only be spared by the feeble nature of the trap itself. New York University School of Law professor Sally Katzen, a senior fellow with ACUS who previously served as acting chair of the agency, told me she doubted the Supreme Court would seize upon this case to kill agency independence.
“It’s a plausible scary scenario,” Katzen says, “but I don’t see them going that far. ACUS is not a traditional independent regulatory commission. It has no authority to issue binding regulations nor does it have any enforcement powers.” If Severino and his allies wanted the Supreme Court to overturn Humphrey’s, “they should’ve picked a bigger fish. ACUS is a tiny little minnow—but a lovable minnow—in the world of administrative agencies.”
Severino, in other words, appears destined to lose this lawsuit one way or another. Through its own unforced error, however, the Biden administration has made it more likely that he will take down independent agencies with him.
mma https://www.mediamatters.org/national-review/flashback-ed-whelan-defended-chief-justice-roberts-leaving-federalist-society-his
Right-wing media figures -- including National Review Online blogger and Ethics and Public Policy Center president Ed Whelan -- have been baselessly suggesting that judicial nominee Goodwin Liu was trying to hide something by submitting additional writings and statements as a supplement to his Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire.
University of Minnesota law professor Richard Painter, a former assistant White House counsel during the Bush administration, pretty much destroyed those arguments, noting of Liu's additions, “most of these items are the types of things that law professors do routinely and frequently” and are thus “nearly impossible to keep track of” and stating: “Professor Liu also apparently does not have a photographic memory. It appears to me, however, that his original answers to the questions were a careful and good faith effort to supply the Senate with the information it needed to assess his nomination.” Painter continued: “He provided a lot more information than many nominees do in response to these questions. He has now provided the additional information the Senate wants. I doubt the Senators will learn anything new from it.”
Since Painter's definitive debunking hasn't stopped the attacks, we thought it was worth remembering that Chief Justice John Roberts omitted his affiliation with the Federalist Society from the questionnaire he submitted as a court of appeals nominee in 2001. That questionnaire asked Roberts to “list all bar associations, legal or judicial-related committees or conferences of which you are or have been a member.” Roberts listed several legal organizations but did not list the Federalist Society -- an influential conservative legal organization to which many of President Bush's judicial nominees belonged -- in response to that question. However, according to The Washington Post, the Federalist Society listed Roberts' name in its 1997-98 “leadership directory.” The Post reported that the Federalist Society listed Roberts “as a member of the steering committee of the organization's Washington chapter and includes his firm's address and telephone number.”
And who was busy excusing Roberts for not listing the Federalist Society on his questionnaire? Ed Whelan.
From the Post:
Whelan, who has been a member of the Federalist Society but said he had no recollection of his own membership on the steering committee, said the society is tolerant of those who come to its meetings or serve on committees without paying dues.
“John Roberts probably realized pretty quickly he could take part in activities he wanted to” without being current on his dues, Whelan said.
It should be noted that the questionnaire Roberts filled out for his Supreme Court nomination asked if Roberts to list all the organizations to which he currently belonged, had ever belonged, or in which he participated. This time, Roberts stated:
According to recent press reports, in 1997 I was listed in brochures as a member of the Washington Lawyers Steering Committee of the Federalist Society. The same reports indicate that one could be on the Committee without also being a member of the Society. I have no recollection of serving on that Committee or being a member of the Society. I have participated in Society events, including moderating a panel in 1993 and more recently speaking before a lunch meeting of the Washington chapter on October 30, 2003.
From the Post article:
Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. has repeatedly said that he has no memory of belonging to the Federalist Society, but his name appears in the influential, conservative legal organization's 1997-1998 leadership directory.
Having served only two years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit after a long career as a government and private-sector lawyer, Roberts has not amassed much of a public paper record that would show his judicial philosophy. Working with the Federalist Society would provide some clue of his sympathies. The organization keeps its membership rolls secret, but many key policymakers in the Bush administration are acknowledged current or former members.
Roberts has burnished his legal image carefully. When news organizations have reported his membership in the society, he or others speaking on his behalf have sought corrections. Last week, the White House told news organizations that had reported his membership in the group that he had no memory of belonging. The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today and the Associated Press printed corrections.
Over the weekend, The Post obtained a copy of the Federalist Society Lawyers' Division Leadership Directory, 1997-1998. It lists Roberts, then a partner at the law firm Hogan & Hartson, as a member of the steering committee of the organization's Washington chapter and includes his firm's address and telephone number.
Yesterday, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Roberts “has no recollection of being a member of the Federalist Society, or its steering committee.” Roberts has acknowledged taking part in some Federalist Society activities, Perino said.
The Federalist Society was founded in 1982 by conservatives who disagreed with what they saw as a leftist tilt in the nation's law schools. The group sponsors legal symposia and similar activities and serves as a network for rising conservative lawyers.
[...]
Membership in the sense of paying dues was not required as a condition of inclusion in a listing of the society's leadership, Leo said. He declined to say whether Roberts had ever paid dues, citing a policy of keeping membership information confidential.
Whelan, who has been a member of the Federalist Society but said he had no recollection of his own membership on the steering committee, said the society is tolerant of those who come to its meetings or serve on committees without paying dues.
“John Roberts probably realized pretty quickly he could take part in activities he wanted to” without being current on his dues, Whelan said.
These may seem like fine distinctions, but Roberts has insisted on them. In 2001, after he was nominated by President Bush for the seat he currently holds on the court of appeals, Roberts spoke to Post reporter James V. Grimaldi and asked him to correct an item Grimaldi had written that described Roberts as a member of the Federalist Society. In a subsequent column, Grimaldi wrote that Roberts “is not and never has been a member of the Federalist Society, as previous reported in this column.”
THE CORNER
POLITICS & POLICY
The Indispensable Ed Whelan
By RAMESH PONNURU
September 28, 2020
As the debate over Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court continues, I can’t think of any commentator more informative than Ethics and Public Policy Center president Ed Whelan, who posts at NRO’s Bench Memos and tweets as @EdWhelanEPPC. In the last few days, he has corrected mistaken criticisms of Judge Barrett from the Washington Monthly, Politico, and NPR.
Some of Barrett’s opponents have sought to discredit Whelan because of a serious error in judgment he made while defending his friend Brett Kavanaugh from what he firmly (and justifiably) believed to be a false charge. Unlike many, many others who said things they shouldn’t have during that debate, Whelan admitted it and apologized. Dwelling on that incident is no substitute for engaging with the evidence and arguments he raises — although it is, admittedly, much easier.
Update: I have eliminated two mistaken commas.
NEXT POST
It’s Time for a Change in Leadership
BACK TO THE CORNER
Ramesh Ponnuru
RAMESH PONNURU is the editor of National Review, a columnist for Bloomberg Opinion, and a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. @rameshponnuru
9 22
Martin Edward Whelan III (born July 26, 1960)[1] is an American lawyer, legal activist and political commentator.Whelan's legal career included clerking for Supreme Court JusticeAntonin Scalia and serving as a deputy assistant attorney general during the George W. Bushadministration. Since 2004, he has served as the president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative think tank "dedicated to applying the Judeo-Christian moral tradition to critical issues of public policy".
- :{1:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{Early life and education:(style="display:table-cell"):}:
- :{2:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{Career:(style="display:table-cell"):}:
- :{3:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{Kavanaugh nomination:(style="display:table-cell"):}:
- :{4:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{Blogging:(style="display:table-cell"):}:
- :{5:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{Books:(style="display:table-cell"):}:
- :{6:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{See also:(style="display:table-cell"):}:
- :{7:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{References:(style="display:table-cell"):}:
- :{8:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{External links:(style="display:table-cell"):}:
Early life and education
Whelan was born in Los Angeles, California, to attorney Martin Edward Whelan II and Nancy Carolyn Mispagel.[2] Whelan graduated with honors from Harvard University in 1981 and was inducted into Phi Beta Kappa.[3] In 1985, he earned a J.D. degree magna cum laude from Harvard Law Schooland also was on the Board of Editors of the Harvard Law Review.[3]
Career
From 1985 until 1986, Whelan worked as a law clerk to United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Judge J. Clifford Wallace.[3] From 1991 until 1992, Whelan worked as a law clerk to United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia.[3] His co-clerks included Judge Jeffrey Sutton and Judge Daniel P. Collins.
In the 1990s, Whelan served as general counsel to the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary while it was controlled by Republicans. He also has worked as a lawyer in private practice and was Senior Vice President and Counselor to the General Counsel for **Verizon**Corporation.[3]
From 2001 until 2004, Whelan served as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the United States Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel, advising the White House Counsel's Office, the Attorney General and other senior DOJ officials, and Departments and agencies throughout the executive branch on difficult and sensitive legal questions.
In 2004, Whelan became president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative nonprofit think tank that is based in Washington, D.C. He directs the EPPC's program on the United States Constitution, federal courts and culture.
In 2016, Whelan gave his opinion in an interview reported by The New York Times. Whelan asked conservatives to adopt an uncompromising stance on appointments to the upper ranks of the U.S. judiciary, including appeals courts (which give the last word on cases the U.S. Supreme Court declines to review, and which can serve as a "breeding ground" for future Supreme Court justices).[4]
Kavanaugh nomination
In 2018, Whelan helped advise his close friend Brett Kavanaugh, a federal judge, in the latter's nomination effort to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.[5] On September 16, Christine Blasey Ford, a professor at Palo Alto University in California, accused Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting and attempting to rape her in the early 1980s when they were teenagers.[6]
Whelan drew considerable criticism when he attempted to defend Kavanaugh, then involved in contentious hearings following his nomination to the Supreme Court. With assistance and information supplied from Creative Response Concepts Public Relations, a conservative public relations firm,[7] Whelan tweeted that Blasey Ford's allegation against Kavanaugh may have been a case of mistaken identity. Whelan went so far as to claim that the real sexual assailant was a Georgetown Prep classmate of Kavanaugh's who he indicated closely resembled him.[8] He also shared the classmate's address and room layout of the man's childhood home, photographs of him, and the his full name.[9]
After facing strong criticism for what critics called a baseless smear of a private citizen, he apologized a day later for an "appalling and inexcusable mistake of judgment."[9][10]
Blogging
In May 2005, Whelan began blogging at the National Review's website.[11]
In June 2009, Whelan sparked a controversy in the blogosphere when he publicly divulged the name of a pseudonymous legal blogger in a post entitled "Exposing an Irresponsible Anonymous blogger".[12] Whelan apologized to the blogger for the disclosure,[13] and the blogger accepted Whelan's apology.[14]
Books
Whelan is also the co-editor of three volumes of Justice Antonin Scalia's work: Scalia Speaks: Reflections on Law, Faith, and Life Well Lived, a *New York Times*-bestselling collection of speeches by Justice Scalia; On Faith: Lessons From an American Believer, a collection of Justice Scalia's writings on faith and religion; and The Essential Scalia: On the Constitution, the Courts, and the Rule of Law, a collection that highlights Justice Scalia's jurisprudence.
The works have been critically acclaimed. Each has featured a foreword from one of Scalia's former colleagues on the Supreme Court, including Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Justice Clarence Thomas, and Justice Elena Kagan.
See also
References
==
suspended from bs CTT
Ethics and Public Policy Center announced Sunday that its president, Ed Whelan, “will take a leave of absence” from the conservative Washington think tank after peddling a conspiracy theory on social media last week related to a sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
Following a special phone-in meeting of the EPPC board on Friday after Whelan’s Twitter screed, he offered to resign “in light of what he described as an ‘appalling and inexcusable’ error in posting online a series of comments that he has now deleted and for which he promptly publicly apologized,” the organization said in a statement. The board declined Whelan’s offer to step down permanently, according to the statement, and the EPPC’s vice president, Yuval Levin, “will be in charge” during Whelan’s time away.
“The board will meet in a month to review the situation,” the statement said.
Later Sunday, Whelan released a statement of apology.
“I apologize deeply and sincerely to all those whom I have harmed by my appalling and inexcusable tweet thread last week — above all, the person whose name I wrongly made public,“ he said.
Ed Whelan’s Troubles Might Be Just Beginning
By JOHN CULHANE
Referencing Christine Blasey Ford, he added: “I also apologize to victims of sexual assault and to Dr. Ford for these and other tweets that did not address with respectful consideration the difficult question of how to assess allegations of sexual assault. I do not believe that all such allegations must be accepted as true, and I believe further that the usual inquiries into motivation, cognition, memory and other matters that apply to other charges properly apply to these as well. But my tweets did not advance the discussion in a constructive way.“
Whelan became the target of swift bipartisan criticism on Thursday evening after offering an unsubstantiated alternative explanation for Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation that Kavanaugh forced himself on her at a drunken high school party more than three decades ago.
His conjectures, laid out in a series of tweets, included floor plans of the house in which Whelan said the alleged assault may have taken place. It also featured the name and photo of a high school classmate of Kavanaugh’s whom Whelan identified as a potential suspect and posited that Ford may have misremembered as the federal judge.
POLITICO _{reported on Friday}_ that CRC Public Relations, a prominent firm based in Alexandria, Va., assisted Whelan in coordinating the rollout of his attempt to discredit Ford’s account and exculpate Kavanaugh.
https://www.republicreport.org/**2018/**how-did-powerhouse-gop-pr-firm-crc-mess-up-kavanaugh-so-bad/
We now know that when conservative lawyer and close Brett Kavanaugh friend Edward Whelan attempted his disastrous Perry Mason tweetstorm suggesting that one of Kavanaugh’s prep school classmates was the one who assaulted Christine Blasey Ford, he did not do so alone.He was, at least, aided and abetted by the big DC firm CRC Public Relations. According to Politico, CRC “guided” Whelan through the unveiling of the accusation, with CRC’s president, Greg Mueller, helping Whelan in advance of the tweets to “stoke the anticipation”; key conservatives touted the announcement in advance.
CRC is one of the most powerful and influential conservative political PR operations. Its clients include the Koch brothers’ Americans for Prosperity, Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform, and the climate change denying Institute for Energy Research. It also has advised an enormous number of major corporations and trade associations, including Amazon, Chevron, General Motors, Microsoft, National Association of Manufacturers, Northrop Grumman, Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers Association, and Pizza Hut. The firm is perhaps best known for its work devising the ugly Swift Boat attack on 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry.
More relevant to this discussion, though, CRC has been aiding the dark money advocacy group Judicial Crisis Network (JCN), the people behind the determined, expensive public campaign to confirm conservative judges and, in the last administration, to block Obama picks for the federal courts. JCN, tied to the conservative lawyers’ group the Federalist Society, spent big to help confirm Neil Gorsuch and now has pushed hard to get Kavanaugh on the court, including with a relentless TV ad buy (e.g., the female friend of Kavanaugh who endlessly tells viewers “I’m a teacher, I’m a coach”).
UPDATE 09-25-18: Politico [reports that Federalist Society executiveVP Leonard Leo has “raised upwards of $15 million from conservative donors” for the JCN communications campaign supporting Kavanaugh. Politico also reports that Whelan “worked feverishly” with Leo (as well as CRC) to “hype” Whelan’s mistaken identity theory.]
From 2013 to mid 2017, according to IRS filings, JCN paid CRC about $5.1 million. The group is obviously spending even more for CRC’s help on Kavanaugh.
If CRC’s people are talented enough to get all this business, how could they have guided the Whelan disaster, the Thursday evening tweetstorm that used maps of Chevy Chase, Maryland, and photos of a house there and two prep school boys to point the finger, by name, at Kavanaugh’s classmate — a debacle so bad, so thoroughly denounced by a wide range of commenters, that the next morning Whelan deleted the thread and apologized for what he called “an appalling and inexcusable mistake of judgment”?
I think it was a Hail Mary pass. I doubt CRC saw the thinly-sourced Whelan accusation as a sure thing. I suspect they hoped the bizarre Twitter attack would spook Dr. Ford and deter her from testifying: Perhaps if she saw that the Kavanaugh forces were prepared to attack an innocent bystander classmate — now a middle school teacher — and burden his life, they would stop at nothing, perhaps Swift-Boating her friends and family with similar recklessness.
I think CRC believed that they had to try, because if Dr. Ford testified, the Kavanaugh nomination might be dead.
Hours after the tweetstorm, Ford issued her resolute statement — “I knew them both, and socialized with [the other classmate]…. There is zero chance that I would confuse them” — and the charge was thwarted. Whelan had to retreat.
But of course his phony theory will stay alive in the hearts and memes of Trump supporters.
The White House and Senate Republicans all denied they had anything to do with the Whelan attack. But there are suggestions otherwise. Whelan was caught by Dr. Ford looking at her LinkedIn profile before her name was made public, but after the Washington Post had asked the White House about her, so it’s apparent that he’s closely tied to the Trump administration’s efforts to confirm his friend Kavanaugh. And this morning, Garrett Ventry, a Grassley Judiciary Committee communications aide, resigned his post after it was reported that he left his previous political job, in North Carolina, amid a charge of sexual harassment. When Ventry joined Grassley’s staff he took a leave of absence from his employer — CRC Public Relations.
It’s been clear for a while that there’s a multi-million dollar campaign by shadowy special interest donors to make a Supreme Court justice out of Brett Kavanaugh, whose judicial record indicates he will cast the deciding vote for big corporations and against workers and consumers. What we didn’t know — until the Whelan/CRC attack and Friday’s nasty misogynist tweet by Donald Trump — was how vicious the architects of this effort were prepared to play it.
But Dr. Ford has not backed down.
https://www.republicreport.org/2018/who-kavanaugh-is-really-for-big-corporations/
ref
Brett Kavanaugh now faces a credible charge of sexual assault, as well as powerful evidence that he repeatedly lied to the Senate to conceal, among other bad deeds, his improper use of stolen documents as a Bush White House aide. Even religious conservatives and others at the grassroots who have supported Kavanaugh should take this moment to reconsider whether this particularly nominee is worth fighting for. Because, although as a Supreme Court justice Kavanaugh might well vote to advance the social conservative agenda, his real specialty as a judge has been supporting large corporations and harming the interests of American workers and consumers. And the millions of dollars supporting his candidacy are coming from a network of Washington lobbyists and big business interests.
Here are some of the key figures in the corporate special interest network that’s aiming to put Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court:
— C. Boyden Gray is the D.C. swamp personified. He’s a corporate lobbyist who was the White House counsel under President George H.W. Bush. He has been a central player in pushing GOP judicial nominees for decades, while also serving the interests of some of America’s wealthiest corporations. Gray published an essay this month arguing that Kavanaugh should be confirmed in part because he will protect the rights of small businesses over those of big business and big government. But the argument hardly seems credible coming from Gray, whose own business is based on trading on the relationships he developed as a top Washington insider to advance the interests of clients in the oil and chemical industries and other monied special interests.
Gray, a wealthy heir to the R.J. Reynolds tobacco fortune, has served on the board of the corporate-backed legal group the Federalist Society as well as of Citizens for a Sound Economy, a business group that was founded by the billionaire oil and chemical industry Koch brothers and later morphed into the Koch advocacy mega-operation Americans for Prosperity. Gray invited President Trump to his fancy Georgetown home earlier this year for a dinner with wealthy Republican donors, including other lobbyists and oil and banking executives, as part of efforts to raise $100 million this year, mostly in big donations, to support Trump and GOP candidates.
—The Judicial Crisis Network (JCN) is the conservative advocacy group that is leading a multi-million dollar public campaign, with heavy TV advertising, to confirm Kavanaugh. JCN is guided by Leonard Leo, who is also the executive vice president of the Federalist Society, and the man who has Trump’s ear when it comes to picking judges. The “dark money” JCN doesn’t reveal its donors, but it’s tied to the political network of the Koch brothers, Boyden Gray, and mysterious wealthy contributors. JCN was launched with seed money from real estate magnate Robin Arkley II — who has made big money foreclosing on the homes of working people.
— Jon Kyl was, until recently, a lobbyist at the DC mega law firm Covington & Burling, which has represented big tobacco’s Philip Morris, oil giant BP, retailer Wal-mart, energy and construction titan Halliburton, and other big corporations. Last year, the Judicial Crisis Network paid Kyl, who had been a U.S. senator from Arizona, to push the nomination of Trump’s previous Supreme Court pick, Neil Gorsuch. The Trump administration this year hired Kyl to shepherd the Kavanaugh nomination, a role that ended when Arizona’s governor tapped Kyl to return to the Senate to take John McCain’s seat and, presumably, to vote to confirm Kavanaugh for the high court.
— Lisa Blatt wrote an article last month entitled, “I’m a Liberal Feminist Lawyer. Here’s Why Democrats Should Support Judge Kavanaugh,” and she introduced Kavanaugh at his Senate hearing. Each time, in vouching for Kavanaugh as a person of integrity and empathy, Blatt stressed her liberal credentials as well as her impressive background as a lawyer who has argued before the Supreme Court more times than any other woman. What Blatt failed to explain is that she’s a partner at the big DC corporate law firm Arnold & Porter, where she represents giant tobacco and pharmaceutical interests seeking to defeat claims by workers and consumers.
We haven’t heard from the feminist Blatt in the wake of Christine Blasey Ford’s allegation that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her during high school, but a group of D.C. Republican women have spoken out on his behalf. As Politico reports, there are a lot of lobbyists for big corporations, like Dow Chemical and Citigroup, in this band of women for Kavanaugh.
—The Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA) is running a “Confirm Judge Brett Kavanaugh!” campaign on its website. State attorneys general frequently represent their states before the U.S. Supreme Court, and the concept of a group of them lobbying for their own Supreme Court justice is ethically concerning. But it’s worse when you consider that RAGA’s activities are funded by big corporations. RAGA’s biggest donor — providing $2.9 million in 2017 and $1.7 million already in 2018 — is the Judicial Crisis Network. It also gets money from numerous large corporations including Koch Industries, ExxonMobil, Monsanto, Facebook, Altria, Coca Cola, Wal-Mart, Mastercard, Johnson and Johnson, UPS, and Murray Energy, as well as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Rifle Association (RAGA’s second largest donor in 2017).
— The Ethics and Public Policy Center is a Washington think tank whose president, Edward Whelan, briefly shook up the Kavanaugh debate Thursday night when he played Twitter Sherlock Holmes and accused a Kavanaugh classmate by name as the possible assaulter — only to delete his thread and apologize the next morning for “an appalling and inexcusable mistake of judgment.” Whelan is a**close friend of Leonard Leo and of Brett Kavanaugh**, with whom he worked in the George W. Bush White House. In devising this Twitter rollout, Whelan was advised by the big DC PR firm CRC Public Relations; CRC’s clients include the Judicial Crisis Network ($3 million from JCN to CRC in 2016), the Federalist Society, and the Kochs’ Americans for Prosperity, as well as corporations:{ including Chevron, Visa, and Microsoft. UPDATE 09-22-18 11:30 am: Garrett Ventry, a Grassley Judiciary Committee communications aide on leave from CRC, :(style="background-color:#ffffff;"):}:[resigned this morning:{ after it was reported that he left his previous job amid a charge of sexual harassment.] The Ethics and Public Policy Center has received }:funding:{ from the family foundations of the billionaire industrialist Koch brothers as well as other wealthy interests.}:
Why are all these corporations and swampy DC lobbyists fighting so hard for Brett Kavanaugh? They have important interests, every year, in cases before the U.S. Supreme Court — cases that decide whether companies can bust unions and discriminate against workers, whether banks must treat customers honestly, whether companies must treat investors fairly, whether big tech companies can charge tolls to use the Internet and can spy on customers, whether predatory for-profit colleges can get away with deceiving students, whether makers of defective products and dangerous pharmaceutical can get away with harming consumers, and whether companies can create monopolies that allow them to control markets and jack up prices.
While a range of Americans are focused on the impact of a five-justice conservative bloc on issues like civil rights, reproductive choice, and other political values, perhaps the most powerful and unifying feature of such a bloc would be its deference to the interests of big business over workers and consumers.
Brett Kavanaugh’s record as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shows that he has usually sided with big business interests — like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, the American Petroleum Institute — in cases involving protection of labor, consumers, health, safety, and the environment.
That’s why big money and big corporations want so badly to confirm Brett Kavanaugh, despite enormous questions about his honesty and integrity.
duck 922
https://fedsoc.org › contributors › edward-whelan
Edward Whelan | The Federalist Society
Edward Whelan is a Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and holds EPPC's Antonin Scalia Chair in Constitutional Studies. He is the longest-serving President in EPPC's history, having held that position from March 2004 through January 2021.
Chad A. Readler
Judge Readler earned his undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Michigan. After graduating, he served as a law clerk to Judge Alan Norris of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Judge Readler then began practicing law in the Columbus office of the international law firm Jones Day, eventually spending ten years as a partner in the firm's Issues and Appeals ...
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Edward_Whelan_(American_lawyer)
Edward Whelan (American lawyer) - Wikipedia
Edward Whelan (American lawyer) Martin Edward Whelan III (born July 26, 1960) [1] is an American lawyer, legal activist and political commentator. Whelan's legal career included clerking for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and serving as a deputy assistant attorney general during the George W. Bush administration.
https://www.mediamatters.org › national-review › flashback-ed-whelan-defended-chief-justice-roberts-leaving-federalist-society-his
FLASHBACK: Ed Whelan defended Chief Justice Roberts for leaving the ...
Whelan, who has been a member of the Federalist Society but said he had no recollection of his own membership on the steering committee, said the society is tolerant of those who come to its...
https://www.nationalreview.com › bench-memos › federalist-society-debate-supreme-court-term-ed-whelan
Federalist Society Debate on Supreme Court Term
Ed Whelan — Mr. Whelan holds the Antonin Scalia Chair in Constitutional Studies at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. A regular contributor to National Review's blog Bench Memos, he has closely...
https://eppc.org › appearance › audio-ed-whelan-discusses-scotus-nomination-at-federalist-society-virtual-event
AUDIO: Ed Whelan Discusses SCOTUS Nomination at Federalist Society ...
Mar 1, 2022AUDIO: Ed Whelan Discusses SCOTUS Nomination at Federalist Society Virtual Event March 1, 2022 | The Federalist Society On March 1, 2022, EPPC Distinguished Senior Fellow Ed Whelan joined the Federalist Society's virtual lunch event to discuss President Biden's nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court. Click here to listen.
Images for ed whelAN federalist
Edward Whelan | The Federalist SocietyM. "Ed" Edward Whelan III | C-SPAN.orgEd Whelan Is Our Duke Of The Week | Talking Points MemoM. "Ed" Edward Whelan III | C-SPAN.orgVideo: "Selecting the Next Justice" at Berkeley Law Federalist Society, Featuring Ed Whelan ...Right Wing PR Firm Helped Concoct Nutjob Theory - Joe.My.God.[PAST EVENT] Ed Whelan: Discussion on the Draft Judicial Ethics Opinion - Law School EventsVideo: "Selecting the Next Justice" at Berkeley Law Federalist Society, Featuring Ed Whelan ...Supreme Court Nomination Process | C-SPAN.orgThe Marbut Report: 'Scalia Speaks' at Federalist Society | Jax Daily Record | Jacksonville Daily ...
More Images
https://orgs.law.harvard.edu › fedsoc › event › ed-whelan-supreme-misconduct
Ed Whelan: Supreme Misconduct? - The Harvard Federalist Society
The Harvard Federalist Society. Conservative and Libertarian Students at Harvard Law School. Toggle mobile menu. Toggle search field. Search for: About. Our Board; Our Constitution; For Alumni; For Sponsors; Get Involved. ... Ed Whelan: Supreme Misconduct? September 15, 2016 @ 12:00 pm - 1:00 pm
https://www.nationalreview.com › bench-memos › federalist-societys-annual-convention-ed-whelan
Federalist Society's Annual Convention | National Review
Ed Whelan — Mr. Whelan holds the Antonin Scalia Chair in Constitutional Studies at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. A regular contributor to National Review's blog Bench Memos, he has closely...
https://thefederalist.com › 2016 › 06 › 10 › piecing-americas-fractured-republic-back-together
Piecing America's 'Fractured Republic' Back Together - The Federalist
The Federalist asked five notable writers and thinkers for their thoughts on Levin's book, and how it can help us piece back together our fractured republic. (1) Ed Whelan, President of the Ethics...
https://slate.com › news-and-politics › 2018 › 09 › brett-kavanaugh-ed-whelan-conspiracy-theory-christine-blasey-ford-zillow.html
Is Ed Whelan's Conspiracy the Best the GOP Has? - Slate Magazine
Whelan is no random crank: He is a Federalist Society power broker who has played a major role in the selection of Donald Trump's judicial nominees—including his good friend Kavanaugh.
https://bayareagop.com › mc-events › federalist-society-dinner-with-ed-whelan
Federalist Society Dinner with Ed Whelan - BayAreaGOP.com
The Lawyers Division of the Federalist Society will host a Dinner with Ed Whelan, President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He is also the Co-Author of "Scalia Speaks: Reflections on Law, Faith, and Life Well Lived." RSVP: The event is free and a reservation is required. Contact Chris Hage at christopherhage@yahoo.com.
:{Edward Whelan (American lawyer) - Wikipedia:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:top;display:inline-block;max-width:100%;overflow:hidden;text-overflow:ellipsis;white-space:nowrap"):}:
Martin Edward Whelan III (born July 26, 1960) [1] is an American lawyer, legal activist and political commentator. Whelan's legal career included clerking for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and serving as a deputy assistant attorney general during the George W. Bush administration.
:{Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) / Twitter:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:top;display:inline-block;max-width:100%;overflow:hidden;text-overflow:ellipsis;white-space:nowrap"):}:
Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) / Twitter Ed Whelan @EdWhelanEPPC Distinguished Senior Fellow and Antonin Scalia Chair in Constitutional Studies, @EPPCdc ; co-editor (1) SCALIA SPEAKS, (2) ON FAITH, (3) THE ESSENTIAL SCALIA D.C. eppc.org/author/edward_… Joined May 2010 163 Following 36.8K Followers Tweets Tweets & replies Media Likes Ed Whelan
:{Ed Whelan | National Review:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:top;display:inline-block;max-width:100%;overflow:hidden;text-overflow:ellipsis;white-space:nowrap"):}:
Sep 6, 2022E dward Whelan is a Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and holds EPPC's Antonin Scalia Chair in Constitutional Studies. He directs EPPC's program on The...
:{Edward Whelan, Author at Ethics & Public Policy Center:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:top;display:inline-block;max-width:100%;overflow:hidden;text-overflow:ellipsis;white-space:nowrap"):}:
Jul 18, 2022Edward Whelan is a Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and holds EPPC's Antonin Scalia Chair in Constitutional Studies. He is the longest-serving President in EPPC's history, having held that position from March 2004 through January 2021. Read full bio. EdWhelanEPPC ewhelan@eppc.org Publications Appearances
:{Ed Whelan National Review, Bio, Wiki, Age, Salary, and Net Worth:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:top;display:inline-block;max-width:100%;overflow:hidden;text-overflow:ellipsis;white-space:nowrap"):}:
Ed has worked as the president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center since 2004. Ed Whelan Age He was born on July 26, 1960, in Los Angeles, California, United States of America. Ed is 61 years old. Ed Whelan Height He is a man of standard stature. Ed stands at a height of 5 ft 8 in ( Approx 1.73). Ed Whelan Family
:{Ed Whelan: Defender of the Truth | National Review:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:top;display:inline-block;max-width:100%;overflow:hidden;text-overflow:ellipsis;white-space:nowrap"):}:
Sep 28, 2020Ed Whelan has, in the last few days, corrected mistaken criticisms of Judge Barrett from the 'Washington Monthly,' 'Politico,' and NPR.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/21/17886430/brett-kavanaugh-news-ed-whelan-trump
no lnx
Thursday night, conservative legal operative Ed Whelan sent a series of tweets suggesting that the sexual assault allegations against Brett Kavanaugh were likely a case of mistaken identity. His evidence was that a high school classmate of Kavanaugh’s kind of looked like him, and lived in a childhood home that sounded similar to the home where Kavanaugh’s accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, described the assault taking place.
This thin evidence was quickly torn apart. Political observers from across the aisle blasted Whelan for posting the classmate’s name and photograph and strongly implying, without evidence, that he committed sexual assault. It turns out the classmate, a middle school teacher whose name I don’t want to disseminate, was someone Ford knew; she told the Washington Post that “there is zero chance that I would confuse them.”
By Friday morning, the backlash was so overwhelming that Whelan, who is currently president of the conservative Ethics & Public Policy Center, deleted his entire tweetstorm and apologized
Ed Whelan
@EdWhelan123
I made an appalling and inexcusable mistake of judgment in posting the tweet thread in a way that identified Kavanaugh's Georgetown Prep classmate. I take full responsibility for that mistake, and I deeply apologize for it. I realize that does not undo the mistake.
5:38 AM - Sep 21, 2018
9,194
19.9K people are talking about this
This isn’t a case of a fringe conspiracy theory. Whelan is a well-connected guy in Republican legal circles with a long history of working on judicial nominations. He’s also a good friend of Kavanaugh’s and had reportedly been involved in the effort to get him confirmed. When you put these things together, it raises serious questions as to whether anyone in the White House or Congress knew about or helped coordinate the potentially libelous tweetstorm. It’s even possible that Kavanaugh himself was involved.
Whelan denied any communication with Kavanaugh or the White House about the theory — but, notably, did not mention anyone in Congress. There’s at least some circumstantial evidence that Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Republican from Utah who has supported Kavanaugh throughout the Ford saga, was looped in.
The tweetstorm was a clear attempt to defend Kavanaugh without engaging in the ugly business of calling Ford a liar. The problem, though, is that it ended up strongly suggesting that an uninvolved private citizen was a sex offender — hurting his reputation and dragging him into the spotlight without any good reason. This is in and of itself scandalous, and creates another controversy the Kavanaugh nomination can ill afford.
“The emerging consensus, which I think is right, seems to be that Ed Whelan has made things noticeably worse for [Kavanaugh],” writes Ken White, an attorney who runs the legal blog Popehat. “What a colossal failure of judgment.”
But even if this doesn’t give Republicans pause about continuing with Kavanaugh’s nomination, it’s something that ought to be investigated further.
If Kavanaugh was in any way involved in Whelan’s tweets, then it’s a serious mark against his judgment and character. People who want to serve on the nation’s highest court should not be willing to casually drag a private citizen through the mud, using dubiously legal tactics, to advance their own goals. The same goes for other people in public office, be they Senate Republicans or White House officials.
The case for investigating Whelan’s allegations
Almost immediately after the tweetstorm broke, connected observers began speculating about where Whelan’s theory came from and if he was working alone. Steve Schmidt, a longtime Republican strategist who worked on President George W. Bush’s Supreme Court nominations, was probably the most informed of these speculators
Steve Schmidt
@SteveSchmidtSES
People drown because they panic, not because they can’t swim. The Whelan email is symptomatic of the utter panic consuming a nomination that hangs by the thinnest of threads and the looming spectacle of out of touch octogenarians like Orin Hatch interrogating Dr. Ford.
9:35 PM - Sep 20, 2018
29K
9,582 people are talking about this
Steve Schmidt
@SteveSchmidtSES
Replying to @SteveSchmidtSES
When I ran the Roberts and Alito confirmations Ed Whalen was the singularly most important and effective outside advisor involved in the confirmation effort. He knew every detail when it came to our strategy and everything he did was closely coordinated with the WH effort.
9:35 PM - Sep 20, 2018
3,762
1,342 people are talking about this
@SteveSchmidtSES
Replying to @SteveSchmidtSES
He is a brilliant, meticulous and serious lawyer. He is not a conspiracy nut. It is inconceivable to me that Whelan published that email without discussions, debate and assistance from the WH and GOP Senators and staff. It is not the isolated musings of one man but rather part
Of a broader discreditation strategy. No one should presume that Kavanaugh had any knowledge of the premeditated strategy being executed on his behalf. However, if he did, it utterly and irrevocably disqualifies him as a Justice of the United States Supreme Court. I hope
9:35 PM - Sep 20, 2018
9,061
2,424 people are talking about this
There’s some evidence in the public domain backing up Schmidt’s speculation. On Tuesday, we learned that Kavanaugh had met privately with Hatch, who serves on the Judiciary Committee, and told him the accusations could be a case of mistaken identity. Whelan amplified this defense on his Twitter feed. On Wednesday, Hatch’s spokesperson, Matt Whitlock, retweeted another Whelan tweet promoting a mistaken identity theory, telling people to “keep an eye on Ed’s tweets the next few days.” (After Whelan’s thread came out, Whitlock deleted the tweet and denied having any foreknowledge of what Whelan was planning.)
Then on Thursday evening, the Washington Post reported that the “mistaken identity” argument was a central plank of the planned Kavanaugh defense against the Ford allegations. It’s not clear in the story whether the plan was to simply say it was someone else, or to point the finger at a specific person as Whelan did:
Kavanaugh and his allies have been privately discussing a defense that would not question whether an incident involving Ford happened, but instead would raise doubts that the attacker was Kavanaugh, according to a person familiar with the discussions.
“I find this alarming,” tweeted Democratic Sen. Brian Schatz, pointing to the above paragraph in the Washington Post story.
Whelan denied any collusion with Kavanaugh, as reported by the Washington Post’s Robert Costa
Robert Costa
"I have not communicated at all with Don McGahn or anyone at the White House, or Judge Kavanaugh, about the topic of the Twitter thread," @EdWhelanEPPC tells me just now, in a brief phone interview.
Whelan declined to answer further questions.
7:31 AM - Sep 21, 2018
2,424
1,896 people are talking about this
This statement doesn’t deny that Whelan spoke to members of Congress or their staff, and the denial of coordination with Kavanaugh and the administration is couched: All Whelan says is that he personally didn’t speak with them about it. It’s entirely possible that Hatch’s office, or some other associate of Whelan’s, looped in the White House and the nominee about the coming tweetstorm.
I say “possible” because none of this is even remotely confirmed. I don’t want to blast Whelan for lobbing allegations without evidence and then engage in the same thing myself. I have no inside knowledge to assert that any of this has actually happened.
But the fact pattern is suspicious enough that it should be investigated further. The wrongdoing here is significant, and the effects are not yet contained. On Friday morning, Fox & Friends, the president’s favorite news show, aired a segment suggesting that Whelan’s theory is plausible (though they didn’t mention his name). A piece on the fringe right pro-Trump blog Gateway Pundit, one that names Whelan’s target and credulously repeats his allegations, has nearly 35,000 Facebook shares
Lis Power
@LisPower1
F&F is v impressed by Ed Whelan's doppelganger theory
Doocy: A fellow by the name of Ed Whelan .. figured out what house it may have happened at ... and looked at a picture of the young man, they look a lot alike
Earhardt: Really?
Henry: So, is it a case of mistaken identity?
4:19 AM - Sep 21, 2018
514
551 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
This means that Whelan’s tweets, even after their deletion, could continue to do real damage to the reputation of a seemingly innocent American.
If Brett Kavanaugh knew about this and okayed it, or at least did not object, that strikes me as a serious mark against him. If Hatch or his office was involved, the voters of Utah deserve to know. If the White House was involved, the staffers responsible need to be held to account.
From top to bottom, the Whelan saga was a disaster for the Kavanaugh nomination. It’s the political equivalent of an interception (an own goal if you prefer soccer), concretely hurting the pro-Kavanaugh camp’s case.
But perhaps more importantly, it’s a potentially a story of serious wrongdoing by major government officials. There’s another cloud hanging over Kavanaugh’s nomination now, and it seems hard to justify confirming him until it’s cleared up.
suspended from bs CTT
Ethics and Public Policy Center announced Sunday that its president, Ed Whelan, “will take a leave of absence” from the conservative Washington think tank after peddling a conspiracy theory on social media last week related to a sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
Following a special phone-in meeting of the EPPC board on Friday after Whelan’s Twitter screed, he offered to resign “in light of what he described as an ‘appalling and inexcusable’ error in posting online a series of comments that he has now deleted and for which he promptly publicly apologized,” the organization said in a statement. The board declined Whelan’s offer to step down permanently, according to the statement, and the EPPC’s vice president, Yuval Levin, “will be in charge” during Whelan’s time away.
“The board will meet in a month to review the situation,” the statement said.
Later Sunday, Whelan released a statement of apology.
“I apologize deeply and sincerely to all those whom I have harmed by my appalling and inexcusable tweet thread last week — above all, the person whose name I wrongly made public,“ he said.
Ed Whelan’s Troubles Might Be Just Beginning
By JOHN CULHANE
Referencing Christine Blasey Ford, he added: “I also apologize to victims of sexual assault and to Dr. Ford for these and other tweets that did not address with respectful consideration the difficult question of how to assess allegations of sexual assault. I do not believe that all such allegations must be accepted as true, and I believe further that the usual inquiries into motivation, cognition, memory and other matters that apply to other charges properly apply to these as well. But my tweets did not advance the discussion in a constructive way.“
Whelan became the target of swift bipartisan criticism on Thursday evening after offering an unsubstantiated alternative explanation for Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation that Kavanaugh forced himself on her at a drunken high school party more than three decades ago. His conjectures, laid out in a series of tweets, included floor plans of the house in which Whelan said the alleged assault may have taken place. It also featured the name and photo of a high school classmate of Kavanaugh’s whom Whelan identified as a potential suspect and posited that Ford may have misremembered as the federal judge.
POLITICO _{reported on Friday}_ that CRC Public Relations, a prominent firm based in Alexandria, Va., assisted Whelan in coordinating the rollout of his attempt to discredit Ford’s account and exculpate Kavanaugh.
ref
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/09/21/ed-whelan-tweets-220527
Whelan may have just crossed a line he can’t jump back over.
Yesterday, Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative think tank and an assertive supporter of Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court, took to Twitter to lay out a Hardy Boys-inspired scenario, suggesting that Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who accused Kavanaugh of attempted rape in high school, might have been mistaken about the identity of her alleged sexual assaulter. Using a mashup of yearbook photos, Zillow information, Google Maps and Facebook, Whelan laid out a “case” that another man, a former classmate of Kavanaugh’s at Georgetown Prep—whom he named and provided a current photograph of—might have been the person Ford has in mind. After his wild theory received widespread criticism, Whelan deleted the tweets and tried to walk back the accusation this morning. yyy The common law of defamation isn’t that complicated. To be liable, the defendant must make an intentionally or negligently false statement about the plaintiff that tends to cause reputational harm, and harm must actually ensue. /font>
The requirement that the statements Whelan made about the “mystery man” (whom we’ll not reidentify here) be false might be the most difficult requirement to satisfy. The first question courts ask is whether a reasonable person would think the defendant was saying something that would be taken as the truth—because a statement can only be “false” if compared to a true one. Generally,& ...;are not actionable, if the defendant sets forth the basis for them and doesn’t claim them to be true. Whelan might argue that he himself was publishing an opinion, as one of the last tweets in the storm has this disclaimer: “I have no idea what, if anything, did or did not happen in that bedroom at the top of the stairs.”
But that may not be enough to insulate Whelan, given that he also wrote of “compelling reasons to believe” Kavanaugh’s denial, and then launched into a tweetstorm examination of what he clearly presents as evidence in support of his “theory.” A reasonable person might well think he was making a claim about what “really” happened. The case he builds reads much more like a series of factual, evidence-based claims than an opinion. The mystery man, though, will have the burden of proving that the statement Whelan made was false, and would be reasonably taken that way.
In addition to showing the statement was false, the Kavanaugh look-alike will have to show that Whelan was at fault in making it. In a series of decisions dating back to 1964, the Supreme Court has held that freedom of speech under the First Amendment requires public figures making a defamation claim to show the defendant was guilty of more than “mere” negligence—they have to convince the jury that the defendant either published the statement knowing it to be untrue, or showed reckless disregard for whether the statement was true or false. Otherwise, the Supreme Court reasoned, defendants might fear liability for a less serious error and would be tempted to refrain from publishing controversial statements about public figures at all. In that case, the public’s right to know would be compromised.
But the alleged assailant Whelan named isn’t a public figure, and the court has declined several chances to expand the recklessness requirement to private citizens who don’t do anything to place themselves in the public eye. In cases involving matters of public interest but private plaintiffs, such as the Whelan Twitter thread, only a showing of negligence is required. For the “mystery man” to prove Whelan was negligent, he must show that a reasonable person would have investigated further before setting out his theory on Twitter. That seems clear in this case, and is underscored by Whelan’s deletion of the entire thread.
Of course, nothing stops the Supreme Court from changing its own rules; no interpretation of the Constitution is really ever “settled.” And because the Supreme Court has no rules in place to determine when a justice must recuse himself from sitting on a case, there’s a chance that Kavanaugh could provide a crucial fifth vote in a precedent-setting decision making it harder for the Kavanaugh look-alike to win a defamation claim. Perhaps the court will apply the “recklessness” standard to all cases involving matters of public interest; several justices have argued for that position over the years.
Whelan can’t jump back across the defamation line through his retraction, either. While his mea culpaand tweet deletions will make it harder for people to find the assailant’s identity, it’s not thathard. (It took me exactly four seconds.) In any case, the law is clear that the defamation is actionable once “published”—meaning, made known to at least one other party. Here, of course, the whole Twitter-verse watched, agape, as Whelan pumped out his “what if” account....">Whelan’s retraction could still be relevant, though, in another way. The law presumes that, at least in cases of libel (written defamation, which includes Twitter), the plaintiff has suffered harm, so recovery of damages is possible even if no calculable damages—such as the loss of one’s job—are proved. But since the jurors have a good deal of discretion in fixing the amount of the award, they are quite likely to award less compensation in cases, like this one, where there’s been a retraction and an apology.
Some have mentioned another possible claim. A number of states recognize a claim with less stringent requirements than defamation against anyone who places the plaintiff in a “false light” that would be “highly offensive to a reasonable person.” The claim is subject to strict Supreme Court rules that balance the plaintiff’s interest in not being placed in a “light” that would be offensive with the public’s right to know, but it has a further, more serious limitation: The tort isn’t even recognized in many states, including Virginia, whence the tweets might have emanated. Even if the action is brought under the law of a state that does recognize it, in the case of Whelan’s statements, the conduct, if believed true, would certainly be defamatory—so the false light tort doesn’t have any real purpose, even if its requirements could technically be met.
Is this all beside the point, though? Will Kavanaugh’s supposed evil twin even sue? He signed a letter attesting to his former classmate’s good character in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee this past summer. Of course, he might not care about that as much as what he might reasonably perceive as an assassination of his own character—and by the time he might decide to sue, the whole Kavanaugh nomination circus will have left town (one way or the other).
If Kavanaugh’s former schoolmate does decide to try to hold Whelan to account, the effect could be much greater than simply wringing damages out of him. There’s talk (including from former Republican strategist Steve Schmidt) suggesting that Whelan didn’t act alone, but was supported by actors within the U.S. government. A civil lawsuit could get to the bottom of that claim. While a finding of involvement by other actors wouldn’t absolve Whelan of liability, it might lead to other civil suits, or, perhaps more important in our current political moment, embarrassing revelations that could have electoral implications. As I’ve written in the context of the Stormy Daniels litigation, tort claims can often serve the broader purpose of turning up information about wrongdoing—not only by the defendant, but by others who are not even parties to the lawsuit. The discovery process, by which both sides are routinely required to turn over a blizzard of documents, emails and other materials related to the central claim, can make life miserable for those trying to conceal their wrongful conduct. Just ask the people who ran the tobacco industry in the 1990s.
For now, Whelan’s voice has gone silent. Whether that will continue for long is impossible to predict, but we can safely say that the Kavanaugh nomination debacle will continue to provide the worst kind of train-wreck fascination.
==
range of responses presumably:
Ed Whelan takes leave of absence from Ethics and Public ... - CNN.com
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/23/politics/ed-whelan...leave-of-absence/index.html
7 days ago - After stirring controversy by posting a series of tweets suggesting the woman accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual ...
Ed Whelan Takes 'Leave Of Absence' From Ethics Group ... - HuffPost
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/.../kavanaugh-doppleganger-conspiracist-ed-whelan-...
1.
Ed Whelan taking 'leave of absence' after posting Kavanaugh theory ...
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/23/ed-whelan-kavanaugh-theory-837445
1.
Ed Whelan takes leave of absence from Ethics and Public ... - TheBlaze
https://www.theblaze.com/.../ed-whelan-takes-leave-of-absence-from-ethics-and-publi...
1.
Ed Whelan takes 'leave of absence' from ethics group after ... - AOL.com
https://www.aol.com/article/.../ed-whelan...leave-of-absence...ethics.../23539754/
1.
Kavanaugh booster Ed Whelan placed on leave from ethics institute ...
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/.../kavanaugh-booster-ed-whelan-placed-on-lea...
1.
Ed Whelan Taking Leave of Absence | Law & Crime
https://lawandcrime.com/.../kavanaugh-ally-who-tweeted-mistaken-identity-conspirac...
1.
Ed Whelan on 'Leave of Absence' Following Kavanaugh Conspiracy ...
https://www.thedailybeast.com/ed-whelan-on-leave-of-absence-following-kavanaugh-...
1.
The Ethics and Public Policy Center Rejected Ed Whelan's ... - PJ Media
https://pjmedia.com/.../eppc-rejects-ed-whalens-resignation-after-kavanaugh-sexual-as...
1.
Ed Whelan Takes Leave Of Absence After Inflammatory Tweet Thread ...
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/.../ed-whelan-takes-leave-of-absense-after-inflammator...
1.
Ed Whelan, the president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, posted a widely panned tweet storm on Twitter using the thinnest possible evidence to try and claim it's more likely Christine Blasey Ford, Kavanaugh's accuser, was attacked by another friend of theirs in high school who supposedly looked like Kavanaugh. Whelan presented no solid evidence for this and faced major blowback for insinuating that someone might be guilty of sexual assault with so little basis... Conservative writer Max Boot, who has previously been favorable to Kavanaugh's nomination, viewed this defense/meltdown as a devastating sign for the conservative movement.<...https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/ed-whelan-takes-leave-of-absense-after-inflammatory-tweet-thread... "It tells you how far the right has descended into madness that this vile accusation did not come from an anonymous blogger on some online bulletin board or from professional conspiracy theorist Alex Jones," he wrote in a new XXXWashington Post column. "It came from someone with sterling establishment credentials: Whelan is a Harvard Law School graduate who has served as a clerk to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a Senate Judiciary Committee staffer, and a deputy assistant attorney general in the George W. Bush administration."
Boot also came to Ford's defense, dismissing other smears against her that imply she somehow made up the story about Kavanaugh:
Why would Ford “set up” Kavanaugh when the cost of doing so is to have her name dragged through the mud and forced to flee her own home to avoid death threats? If she is setting up Kavanaugh, why would she take (and pass) a polygraph test and insist on an FBI investigation, knowing that lying to the FBI is a federal crime? If she was setting up Kavanaugh, why would she place his friend Mark Judge in the room, knowing that his testimony could contradict hers? And, why if this is a set-up, did she relay the sexual assault allegation to her marital therapist in 2012? Did she intuit years in advance that Kavanaugh would be nominated to the Supreme Court — but fail to foresee that, like every other woman who has made such allegations against a powerful man, she would be subject to character assassination?
Since the rise of President Donald Trump, Boot has been increasingly demoralized by and distanced from the Republican Party. This latest disaster only shows how deep the moral rot of the GOP has spread.
"There are a lot of people who will believe his conspiracy theory, despite the recantation, because they are predisposed to believe it," he wrote. "Much of the right has taken leave of its senses. They are willing, even eager, to believe in 'alternative facts,' to quote Kellyanne Conway’s infamous phrase, if by doing so it will advance their agenda. Any sin, no matter how grave — even maligning an innocent man on sexual-assault charges — is justified in the name of political expediency."
In the end, Boot argued the party has put its soul up for sale in the search for power. Any of those with any qualms left have already abandoned the GOP.
==
https://www.alternet.org/kavanaugh-ally-did-online-searches-christine-ford-she-was-revealed-accuser-report
conservative lobbyist friend of Brett Kavanaugh's searched for Dr. Christine Blasey Ford on LinkedIn before she was outed as the person who accused the Supreme Court nominee of sexual assault.
The Washington Post reported that on Sunday, Ford forwarded an email to an associate showing that Ethics and Public Policy Center president Ed Whalen had been looking at her LinkedIn profile.
According to the report, Ford sent the email about 90 minutes after the Post shared her name with the White House — but before the newspaper posted a story revealing her name on Monday.
In a statement, the White House claimed that neither Kavanaugh nor anyone within the administration shared the accuser's name with Whelan.
The EPPC president and Kavanaugh ally came under fire earlier in the week after he posted a conspiracy theory on Twitter claiming Ford mixed up the nominee with another classmate.
==
older no lnx
National Review Online is trying to push back on the mea culpa of a judge who now thinks strict voter ID does in fact impermissibly discriminate, maintaining its long-standing position as a supporter of election changes that have been widely denounced as blatant forms of voter suppression.
In 2007, well-known and respected conservative Judge Richard Posner of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld a voter ID law in Indiana that was the first in a wave of increasingly stricter restrictions on the right to vote passed by Republican-controlled legislatures.Affirmed by a splintered Supreme Court, as the sole high-profile legal decision on the sort of unnecessary and redundant voter ID laws that are now widely promoted by the GOP, Crawford v. Marion County Elections Board has been incessantly trumpeted by right-wing media as the legal underpinning for their obsession with election changes that are documented to suppress the vote.
Now that Posner has bluntly admitted he was wrong and the evidence shows that strict voter ID is "now widely regarded as a means of voter suppression rather than fraud prevention," NRO is resorting to smearing the judge's integrity and intelligence.
Legal contributor Hans von Spakovsky, the repeatedly discredited champion of photo voter ID laws as the alleged "solution" to the virtually non-existent "problem" of in-person voter fraud, responded to the news of Posner's recent admission by claiming the judge had "been taken in" by the "Left's well-oiled propaganda machine." NRO's in-house legal expert, Ed Whelan, asserted that a switch in judgment by the judge was "weak" and praised a Washington Post columnist who attacked the judge as unethical for speaking publicly.
Von Spakovsky's attempt to rebut Posner's revelation by pointing to increased turnout in communities of color was a rehash of his continued failing of Statistics 101. As has been explained to von Spakovsky and others by statisticians, academics, and congressmen, just because more persons of color are voting now as the country grows more diverse doesn't mean that overly restrictive voting changes aren't suppressing the vote.
Not only is this confusing causation with correlation, but suppressing the vote also occurs when it becomes harder to do, not just when it is blocked entirely. The federal judge who blocked Texas' strict voter ID law because 600,000 to 800,000 citizens do not have easy access to the supporting documentation needed for the new identification requirements held that "a law that forces poorer citizens to choose between their wages and their franchise unquestionably denies or abridges their right to vote."
The Retrograde Right-Wing Media Campaign Against Judicial Nominee Cornelia Pillard
Blog ››› July 24, 2013 4:29 PM EDT ››› SERGIO MUNOZ
91
Pillard, ObamaFresh off of unsuccessful scare-mongering about the dangers of marriage equality, right-wing media are turning the clock back even further and attacking a highly qualified judicial nominee to the important D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals because of her academic writings on established sex equality law.
Started by Ed Whelan of the National Review Online and continued by anti-gay hate group leader Tony Perkins, a whisper campaign against veteran litigator and law professor Cornelia T.L. Pillard, President Obama's pick for the D.C. Circuit, has been spreading through right-wing media.
Whereas Whelan at least attempted to engage the legal arguments of a 2007 law review article in which Pillard explored how decades-old sex equality law is relevant to reproductive rights, other right-wing media are making even wilder and more inaccurate claims to smear the nominee as extreme when she is in fact solidly in the mainstream.
Perkins of the notorious Family Research Council, for example, made numerous errors in his attack on Pillard that, along with Whelan's rhetoric, is circulating on anti-choice websites and right-wing blogs.
Falsely ascribing a quote of conservative former Chief Justice William Rehnquist to Pillard in which he wrote for the Supreme Court that family leave policies not equally provided to both sexes are a "self-fulfilling cycle of discrimination," Perkins inaccurately described it as Pillard's condemnation of "celebrating motherhood." Where Pillard has observed that the anti-choice personhood movement could be exposed as unconstitutional by increasing awareness of the equal protection ramifications for pregnant women, Perkins fabricated the charge that Pillard "criticizes" the ultrasound. Resorting to spreading the ridiculous myth that Pillard would "declare" abstinence-only education "unconstitutional," Perkins managed to debunk such a silly charge in his very next sentence by quoting her accurate observation that a sex education class that stereotypes and disadvantages women could theoretically be "vulnerable to an equal protection challenge" under established precedent.
Finally, Perkins selectively quoted Pillard to characterize as "militant feminism" her argument that for women to have equal rights in the workplace, they need to be valued for more than their ability to bear children. From the actual full quote in Pillard's 2007 article:
A society in which women lack control to plan when they have children is one in which women must remain second-class citizens. We already know, and the Court recognized in Hibbs, that many employers assume that to be a mother is to be a primary caregiver with correspondingly less job commitment than a man, who is presumed to be an unencumbered "ideal worker." If impaired access to contraceptives hinders women's ability to exercise choice about when and whether to have children, it also reinforces broader patterns of discrimination against women as a class of presumptive breeders rather than reliable breadwinners and citizens.
Fox News Joins NRO's Smear Campaign Against Cornelia T.L. Pillard...
*mma tag https://www.mediamatters.org/people/ed-whelan*
...
==
early and fervent brett attack dog:
From the moment the world learned that there were serious accusations of sexual misconduct against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, countless conservatives have done their best to mock, downplay, and disregard the very serious allegations.
Now that the accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, has come forward, they haven't slowed their attempt to discredit, demean and dismiss her at all. If anything, their attacks have only ramped up as the allegations became more serious and credible.
Fox News commentator Stephen Miller (no relation to the White House staffer) offered up some of the worst takes in the aftermath of Ford's revelations. Ford said that Kavanaugh and a friend of his, Mark Judge, held her down in a bedroom at a party in high school while Kavanaugh groped her and tried to remove her clothes. She says they covered her mouth, turned up music to muffle her screams, and says she feared they'd inadvertently kill her.
SPONSORED
Miller's response? "It was drunk teenagers playing seven minutes of heaven."
In this way, he doesn't even accept Kavanaugh's denial that the incident ever took place. He seems to believe that it happened, but he dismisses any claim that it was wrong — despite the fact that Ford says she feared for her life, says it was against her will, and experienced decades of trauma as a result.
David French, a columnist for National Review, conversely, agrees that the charges against Kavanaugh are serious. But from the beginning, he's been clear that there's little reason to believe a woman who brings charges against a well-respected conservative judge.
Before Ford had come forward, he said, "So far, the claims against Kavanaugh are _still_ a dreadful dirty trick."
After she went on the record with the compelling details of her allegations, his mind didn't change. He said it's more likely that he claims are false than that they're true, based on little more than minor (and easily explained) discrepancies between her account now and notes taken by her therapist about the incident in 2012. And, perhaps, the fact that she's a Democrat.
Ed Whelan, a conservative legal writer, has been a vociferous defender of Kavanaugh from the beginning of his nomination. Without providing any justification aside from his faith in Kavanaugh, he has declared that Ford is not telling the truth about her accusations. He's openly speculated that she might have had false memories about the event, without acknowledging that it's at least as likely, if not more, that Kavanaugh could have blacked out himself during a drunken assault. He also fails to acknowledge one of the major lessons of the #MeToo movement — that many men who seem to be upstanding citizens are also guilty of terrible offenses.
Erick Erickson, a conservative writer at The Resurgent, has been one of the most prolific disseminators of vicious talking points against Ford. He has denied that there should even be hearings about the accusation and has baselessly said that Ford is not credible.
He writes: "While I suspect the accuser will bring forward some friends who claim she told them at the time, because that is just how convenient this story is, thus far none have come forward."
Ford has presented a therapist's notes from 2012 about the assault and her husband's corroborating testimony, but this is not enough for Erickson. But, apparently, based on this quote, nothing could be enough for him. If her friend's come out to confirm the report, that's just a little too "convenient." If they don't, well then how come? Isn't that just a little too suspicious?
He also repeatedly calls her a "Bernie Sanders supporter," as if that damages her credibility.
Another favorite line of attack from many of these conservatives: Going after Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), who kept Ford's letter quiet when she wanted to remain anonymous. They call the late-game revelation of the accusations a dirty trick, rather than taking seriously the fact that coming forward with these accusations is incredibly risky and emotionally and socially costly. This put both Feinstein and Ford in a very fraught position.
Why is it so difficult to come forward? Because accusers know they will be attacked — and these conservatives have proven that to be true.
===
| Edward Whelan | Edward Whelan |
|---|---|
 | |
| Born | 1960 (age 58 years) |
| Alma mater | Harvard University, Harvard Law School |
| Occupation | President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center Blogger for National Review |
For other people with similar names, see Edward Whelan (disambiguation).
Martin Edward Whelan III (born 1960) is a politically conservative American lawyer. He serves as President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative think tank, and used to be an official in the United States Department of Justice.
*
- *
- :{1:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{Early life and education:(style="display:table-cell"):}:
- :{2:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{Professional career:(style="display:table-cell"):}:
- :{3:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{Blogging:(style="display:table-cell"):}:
- :{4:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{References:(style="display:table-cell"):}:
- :{5:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{External links:(style="display:table-cell"):}:
Early life and education
Whelan graduated with honors from Harvard University in 1981 and was inducted into Phi Beta Kappa.[1] In 1985, he earned a law degree magna cum laude from Harvard Law School and also was on the Board of Editors of the Harvard Law Review.[1]
From 1985 until 1986, Whelan worked as a law clerk to United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Judge J. Clifford Wallace.[1] From 1991 until 1992, Whelan worked as a law clerk to United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia.[1]
Professional career
In the 1990s, Whelan served as general counsel to the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary while it was controlled by Republicans. He also has worked as a lawyer in private practice and was Senior Vice President and Counselor to the General Counsel for Verizon Corporation.[1]
From 2001 until 2004, Whelan served as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the United States Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel, advising the White House Counsel's Office, the Attorney General and other senior DOJ officials, and Departments and agencies throughout the executive branch on difficult and sensitive legal questions.
In 2004, Whelan became president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative nonprofit think tank that is based in Washington, D.C. He directs the EPPC's program on the United States Constitution, federal courts and culture.
In 2016, Whelan gave his opinion in an interview reported by The New York Times. Whelan asked conservatives to adopt an uncompromising stance on appointments to the upper ranks of the U.S. judiciary, including appeals courts (which give the last word on cases the U.S. Supreme Court declines to review, and which can serve as a "breeding ground" for future Supreme Court justices).[2]
Blogging
In May 2005, Whelan began blogging at the National Review's website.[3]
In June 2009, Whelan sparked a controversy in the blogosphere when he publicly divulged the name of a pseudonymous legal blogger.[4] He did so in a post entitled "Exposing an Irresponsible Anonymous blogger." Whelan apologized to the blogger for the disclosure,[5] and the blogger accepted Whelan's apology.[6]
References
- ^ :{Jump up to::(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^a b(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Whelan%28American_lawyer%29#cite_ref-autogenerated1_1-1) c(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Whelan%28American_lawyer%29#cite_ref-autogenerated1_1-2) d(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Whelan%28American_lawyer%29#cite_ref-autogenerated1_1-3) e(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Whelan%28American_lawyer%29#cite_ref-autogenerated1_1-4) "Edward Whelan". Ethics and Public Policy Center.
- :{Jump up:(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ Savage, Charlie (February 15, 2016). "Before Scalia's Death, a Clash Between G.O.P. and Obama Over Appellate Judges". *The New York Times. Retrieved February 16, 2016.*
- :{Jump up:(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ Ed Whelan Archive – National Review Online. Bench.nationalreview.com. Retrieved on 2016-03-07.
- :{Jump up:(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ Exposing an Irresponsible Anonymous Blogger – By Ed Whelan – Bench Memos – National Review Online. Bench.nationalreview.com. Retrieved on 2016-03-07.
- :{Jump up:(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ Ed Whelan My Apologies to Publius. National Review Online. June 8, 2009
- :{Jump up:(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ Obsidian Wings: Moving On. Obsidianwings.blogs.com (2009-06-09). Retrieved on 2011-12-02.
External links
- Living people
- Harvard Law School alumni
- Law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States
- 1960 births
- American lawyers
- United States Department of Justice lawyers
- American bloggers
- United States Senate lawyers
==
off bs
Whelan is the President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He directs EPPC’s program on The Constitution, the Courts, and the Culture. His areas of expertise include constitutional law and the judicial confirmation process. As a contributor to National Review Online’s Bench Memosblog, he has been a leading commentator on nominations to the Supreme Court and the lower courts and on issues of constitutional law. He has written essays and op-eds for leading newspapers (including the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and the Washington Post), opinion journals, and academic symposia and law reviews.
Mr. Whelan is co-editor of Scalia Speaks: Reflections on Law, Faith, and Life Well Lived (Crown Forum, 2017), a New York Times bestselling collection of speeches by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
Mr. Whelan, a lawyer and a former law clerk to Justice Scalia, has served in positions of responsibility in all three branches of the federal government. From just before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, until joining EPPC in 2004, Mr. Whelan was the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel in the U.S. Department of Justice. In that capacity, he advised the White House Counsel’s Office, the Attorney General and other senior DOJ officials, and departments and agencies throughout the executive branch on difficult and sensitive legal questions. Mr. Whelan previously served on Capitol Hill as General Counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. In addition to clerking for Justice Scalia, he was a law clerk to Judge J. Clifford Wallace of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
In 2011, the National Law Journal named Mr. Whelan among its “Champions and Visionaries” in the practice of law in D.C. The National Law Journal praised Mr. Whelan for “pioneer[ing] the field of legal blogging” and for offering “commentary [that] infuses national debates over judicial nominees, Supreme Court ethics and appellate court decisions—so much so that, when a Senate Republican cites outside research into the record of an Obama nominee, it’s more likely than not that the handiwork is Whelan’s.”
In 1981 Mr. Whelan graduated with honors from Harvard College and was inducted into Phi Beta Kappa. He received his J.D. magna cum laude in 1985 from Harvard Law School, where he was a member of the Board of Editors of the Harvard Law Review.
==
GLAAD
-- President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center
-- Former law clerk to United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
Facts
-- Refers to trans acceptance as “insanity” and “what everyone used to recognize as lunacy. But the Obama administration now claims that federal statutes adopted decades ago embrace and compel that lunacy.”
-- Refers to gender confirmation surgery as “surgical mutilation”
-- Said the Iowa Supreme Court decision that banning marriage equality violated the state constitution was “gobbledygook”
-- Used a famous quote about prostitution to describe Elena Kagan's opposition to the former Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy
-- Promotes the idea that adoption by gay couples (or straight couples) is not "ideal" and that children raised by gay parents are comparable to children affected by death and divorce.
-- Accused Justice Vaughn Walker of "harbor(ing) a deep-seated animus against traditional marriage" and says that "he has been unwilling or unable to contain his animus."
-- Supports the idea that, in relation to protecting LGBTQ people from discrimination, “'discrimination' is 'just another word for decision-making.'"
-- Called it “absurd” to suggest the U.S. constitution supports marriage equality
==