No mention of Alito in records of founder of controversial college group

on his prior job application!

that he never joined caps but he just put it down, "bragging" that he was a member--but too milk toast to actually go "balls out" and be a part of it.

so, can we trust a guy on the supreme court who lies about his membership in a creepy organization because he finds it to his advantage to claim he does belong to it.

NO!

let's take all his credentials away!

did he really graduate from law school?

what else has he lied about?

if he is willing to put that crap down to get a job in the reagan administration, then how far will he "embellish" his resume to get a job on the supreme court? (will he say he actually IS for the average american and not the corporation? will he say he actually IS in favor of having blacks, woman & gays eating at the same table?? with him?)

daily kos


Alito's Recurring Memory on CAP
by Armando
Thu Jan 12, 2006 at 06:54:40 AM PDT

When Judge Sam Alito filled out the questionnaire the Senate Judiciary Committee, he failed to disclose his past membership in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton. When the Reagan Library released some documents that Alito never expected to see the light of day, including his job application to work for Ed Meese and his 1985 memo expressing his view that Roe should be overturned, Alito then said he did not recall CAP.

When he first testified before the Judiciary Committee, Alito reiterated first that he did not remember being a member of CAP, but remembered that he joined because of ROTC. Yes, that answer makes no sense.

Yesterday, Alito changed his story again, and not for the better:

So, what's worse then? belonging to a bigoted group or merely bragging about it to get in the grace of other bigots?

A lying bastard who brags about being affiliated with a bigoted group. No problem.

So, if now they're trying to spin that Alito never belonged to the group, that leaves the alternative that he lied on a job application for a federal job. Not much better!

Did these records include names of donors and donor lists? "Four boxes" and "hundreds of documents" sounds like a lot, but if it was just a bar bills from their smokers, it's not likely to be very illuminating in terms of who was a member and who was paying those bar tabs. Alito's not mentioned in the "dozens of articles" from the height of the organization's prominence, but since Alito was an alumnus of less than five years' standing, how likely is it that he would have been in the fore of the organization.

Smoke, meet mirror.

"Judge Alito's name never appeared in any document," Specter said. It was not mentioned in any letters to or from the group's founder or executive director, did not appear on any canceled checks for subscriptions, was nowhere to be found on any articles, lists of board members or contributors, and was not in any minutes or attendance records from CAP meetings," Specter said.


The way it's worded 'nowhere to be found on any articles, lists of board members or contributors, and was not in any minutes or attendance records from CAP meetings" makes it sound like he was never a member but this is misleading to say the least.

But just because there's no mention of him, doesn't mean all that much. It just probably means that he wasn't a leader of the group, or very active in it.

That DOESN'T mean he wasn't a member, or that he didn't subscribe to the views and philosophies of CAP.

."It's no wonder Sam Alito cannot remember much about his affiliation with the group," Specter said. "CAP's records prove that any such affiliation was minimal."

1) The records of the CAP seem to indicate only that he did not have a by-line in the organizations' publications and\or their so-called investigations. It does not preclude his membership in CAP; which leads me to this conclusion;
a)Alito did belong to CAP and
b)Alito was so proud of that membership that he overstated his activities when applying for his Reagan-era job application.

2) Alito is lying...he either lied then or he is lying now...

Saying he was in the group to get a job even when he was not. After all Bush is always saying things that he does not mean and will not do or will do if he wants. As his father dropped on to the RR line on women's rights to get on the ticket as Vice. These people will do any thing to get on the power trip. They do not have real values only the ones that count that day.Wouldn't it be nice to hear them say, I was wrong and changed my mind as Byrd did.

just to get the job. if you listen to his responses carefully, you'll hear that every time he was asked "why did you choose to list this particular organization, out of all that you were involved with, on your application?" he responds with "you have to remember, it was a political job i was applying for..."

i have a feeling that he met with someone and was approved, and intended to join CAP but never showed up at any of the meetings once he had a clue what they were really about.

he is not nominated for SC judge - period!

Kennedy asked for those records to be subpoena'd YESTERDAY and it was not done as far as I heard, yet OVERNIGHT, panel staff read FOUR BOXES containing HUNDREDS of documents?

Firstly, how thorough an examination could be done in say 12 hours of HUNDREDS of documents? Secondly if the documents weren't subpoena'd then how did the panel staff get access to them. If no subpoena was neccessary then why could Kennedy's staff not have read those same documents without him having to argue for a subpoena?

Something smells fishy here....

Kennedy did attempt to have the committee issue a subpoena for the documents. I don't think it was ever issued or even voted on because they were turned over voluntarily by the owner, William Rusher, later that same day, thus no need for a subpoena.

Why could Kennedy's staff not have had them earlier? It could have had Sen. Kennedy asked Mr. Rusher. He had previously communicated with Spector about requesting them but never approached the owner of the documents. At least one reporter for the NY Times (David Kirkpatrick) had seen the documents and written a story regarding them as long ago as last November.

Frankly, I'm left trying to choose between two alternatives: a) Sen. Kennedy wanted an issue, not the documents themselves and was unprepared for the possibility that they would be released practically as soon as he asked, or b) Sen. Kennedy (and his staff) actually never thought to ask the owner of the documents if he could have a look. It's hard to conceive that Mr. Rusher would let a NY Times reporter have access and not let a senator have a peek. Particularly since he released them immediately after he was asked. In either case it makes Sen. Kennedy look like the victim of tremendously bad staff work or just plain dumb.

And only by issuing a subpoena could he complain that they hadn't ALL been handed over.

But that still doesn't answer the question of how four boxes containing hundreds of documents could be thoroughly examined in what amounts to a few hours.

Let's look at it like this: 4 boxes, 15-20 staffers, say 5 hours to look. That gives each staffer 5 hours to look through 1/4 to 1/5 of a box of papers. Not much challenge in that unless the staffers are incredibly slow readers.

omitting other groups that he belonged to. Kennedy brought this up, and it was highly relevant. Why would he use his membership on that job app? It couldn't be he "just forgot" because he clearly reviewed the listed organizations, omitting some that had been on a previous list he'd compiled. Yet he didn't omit CAP, indicating that he thought it would help him in his application, and presumably because he agreed with the group's premises. He had to have at least considered this.