US Politics

berbatrick said:
https://www.gofundme.com/support-brett-kavanaugh

Reminder that he had hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt accumulated till 2016, which vanished in one stroke in 2017.
Click to expand...

Adisa said:
Has anyone answered how he paid off all his debts in one go?
Click to expand...

Another poster mentioned it earlier in this thread or perhaps in the Trump or US Politics thread. I found the below article and posted in response to that particular post. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/09/the-many-mysteries-of-brett-kavanaughs-finances/
 
So, there were only 3 people in the room in Dr. Ford's case. People said Judge has to be honest if he was in the room or not while asked by FBI. So, if 2 out of 3 people said they were not there, would it matter at all even if they lie? Why would they care at that point regarding with who ask them about it?

Not to mentioned that it seemed like no one else remembers having that particular party at all.
 
They keep saying the investigation will be "limited in scope". Has anyone actually detailed what this means? Are they allowed to only investigate Dr. Ford's case and not the others? As silly as it sounds, can they investigate him for lying about those year book terms? Or the baseball tickets?
 
Last edited:
kps88 said:
They keep saying the investigation will be "limited in scope". Has anyone actually detailed what this means? Are they allowed to only investigate Dr. Ford's case and not the others? As silly as it sounds, can they investigate him for lying about those year book terms? Or the baseball tickets?
Click to expand...

It means that the focus of the investigation will be the allegations already brought up and they want the FBI to follow procedure and give more transparency to each claim.

I’ve read a few tweets and articles this morning that claim that the FBI can’t be dictated to like that. They decide their own scope. If lines of inquiry result in completely separate crimes arising, it’s their constitutional duty to branch out and investigate them too.
 
Ekkie Thump said:
The clip I'm guessing you are referring to (and which I've just seen) is from the Thomas hearings but does not represent an objection to a Republican request for the opening of an investigation. What seems to have happened is this: An FBI investigation was opened (the three days thing) after submission of which the Whitehouse concluded that Anita Hill's allegation was unfounded. For this reason Republicans wanted the Whitehouse analysis to be an important part of the nomination process while Biden, presumably, wanted to lessen its impact. The video itself was shot two weeks after the FBI concluded their investigation and a half week after any knowledge of either the allegations or the investigation became public.

What Biden is doing is describing the nature of an FBI background report and stating that it does not reach conclusions (the job of congress) but merely accurately reports conversations. In such circumstances so long as there are no revelations in the transcription the report is going to be inconclusive. If there are revelations though.....
Click to expand...
Thank you for taking the time to clarify that. Appreciated.
 
Pexbo said:
It means that the focus of the investigation will be the allegations already brought up and they want the FBI to follow procedure and give more transparency to each claim.

I’ve read a few tweets and articles this morning that claim that the FBI can’t be dictated to like that. They decide their own scope. If lines of inquiry result in completely separate crimes arising, it’s their constitutional duty to branch out and investigate them too.
Click to expand...

What this means is they can't be limited to things they may discover along the way that may lead to yet other things. They can however be limited to the things that have already been brought up and since the vote is scheduled in a week, the investigation will almost certainly get stopped at that point Trump or Wray approve an extension.
 
Red Defence said:
This FBI investigation...does that mean they will be able to investigate/question Kavanaugh?
Click to expand...

I'm guess they will do yes, since lying to the feds is a crime. Same with Judge. Those two simple acts alone along with questioning the other two people at the party that night should reveal quite a bit.
 
Raoul said:
I'm guess they will do yes, since lying to the feds is a crime. Same with Judge. Those two simple acts alone along with questioning the other two people at the party that night should reveal quite a bit.
Click to expand...
I guess lying to the feds is only a crime if it can be proved they lied... Provided their story's back exhaust others up then they are gonna be fine ... And I suspect they will both have legal council to ensure that happens... He will be confirmed in less than 2 weeks I think
 
sun_tzu said:
I guess lying to the feds is only a crime if it can be proved they lied... Provided their story's back exhaust others up then they are gonna be fine ... And I suspect they will both have legal council to ensure that happens... He will be confirmed in less than 2 weeks I think
Click to expand...

Judge has written 2 books about the party culture at Georgetown Prep, so anything he says will be held to account with his previous writings.
 
Raoul said:
Judge has written 2 books about the party culture at Georgetown Prep, so anything he says will be held to account with his previous writings.
Click to expand...
I suspect the
Limited scope of the investigation (and the lawyers that will be provided to him) will make sure the only questions he can be asked are very specific ones about kavanaugh and he won't remember anything about the times in question
 
Last edited:
sun_tzu said:
I suspect the

Limited scope of the investigation (and the lawyers that will be provided to him) will make sure the only questions he can be asked are very specific ones about kavanaugh and he won't remember anything about them
Click to expand...

Limited in scope means anything that has already been brought up so far, which means Judge's relationship with Kavanaugh is fair game.
 
Raoul said:
Limited in scope means anything that has already been brought up so far, which means Judge's relationship with Kavanaugh is fair game.
Click to expand...
I dunno I mean he will be entitled to legal council I assume in any interview (which again I guess will be on a voluntary basis)
I suspect some top republican friendly lawyer will offer their time for free and any question that they feel goes to far they shut down... Anything else they tell him if your not 100% sure say it's a long time ago I am a recoving addict so I can't confirm or deny
 
sun_tzu said:
I dunno I mean he will be entitled to legal council I assume in any interview (which again I guess will be on a voluntary basis)
I suspect some top republican friendly lawyer will offer their time for free and any question that they feel goes to far they shut down... Anything else they tell him if your not 100% sure say it's a long time ago I am a recoving addict so I can't confirm or deny
Click to expand...

Ultimately lying to the FBI is a federal crime punishable by 5 years or more in jail, so Judge's calculus will be to avoid jail time at all costs. And since he already has a considerable body of evidence about the school available in the public space, the Feds will be able to use that as a measuring stick to see whether Judge's comments in the present are in line with what he previously said, and by extension, whether what he says about Kavanaugh jives with the culture he wrote about in his book.
 
Raoul said:
Ultimately lying to the FBI is a federal crime punishable by 5 years or more in jail, so Judge's calculus will be to avoid jail time at all costs. And since he already has a considerable body of evidence about the school available in the public space, the Feds will be able to use that as a measuring stick to see whether Judge's comments in the present are in line with what he previously said, and by extension, whether what he says about Kavanaugh jives with the culture he wrote about in his book.
Click to expand...
As I say they have to prove he lies... And if he says this is all very stressful and I'm a recovering addict I can't be sure and I don't remember then he's fine and so is kanansugh... And I presume he does not even have to agree to be interviewd let alone actually answer anything he does not want to... It's a facade to rubber stamp things .... Justice kavanaugh by mid october
 
sun_tzu said:
As I say they have to prove he lies... And if he says this is all very stressful and I'm a recovering addict I can't be sure and I don't remember then he's fine and so is kanansugh... And I presume he does not even have to agree to be interviewd let alone actually answer anything he does not want to... It's a facade to rubber stamp things .... Justice kavanaugh by mid october
Click to expand...

They don't have to prove anything at all. They are simply gathering information for the committee to consider before they vote.
 
I think Judge can safely lie about the specific attack because he knows BK won't ever admit to it. But there's no downside to him to countering BK's other lies.
 
I wonder whether all those people on the left who didn't vote for Hilary on the basis that she was pro-war, pro-Wall Street and far too right-wing are starting to regret that decision now.
 
Raoul said:
Judge has written 2 books about the party culture at Georgetown Prep, so anything he says will be held to account with his previous writings.
Click to expand...

He could just say he lied to get a better story and make money. That's what 50 cent did when a judge asked him how he can't pay money when he is rapping about benjamins and lambos.
 
Frosty said:
I wonder whether all those people on the left who didn't vote for Hilary on the basis that she was pro-war, pro-Wall Street and far too right-wing are starting to regret that decision now.
Click to expand...

I doubt it. A vast majority of them are entrenched into their own ideological purity where any construct that deviates from their own self-imposed orthodoxy is viewed as just as bad as being a part of the right. Very similar to the sentiment of the Tea Party about a decade ago
 
Wednesday at Stoke said:
He could just say he lied to get a better story and make money. That's what 50 cent did when a judge asked him how he can't pay money when he is rapping about benjamins and lambos.
Click to expand...

That's a lot of lying to just protect Kavanaugh, who he is barely even friends with anymore. Best to tell the truth and save his own hide in the process.
 
Raoul said:
That's a lot of lying to just protect Kavanaugh, who he is barely even friends with anymore. Best to tell the truth and save his own hide in the process.
Click to expand...

The Yale/prep-school societies are much bigger cults than any scientology and their influence runs deep in every place worth being. Judge would sooner lie and stay on their good side than come clean and become a pariah.
 
Raoul said:
I'm guess they will do yes, since lying to the feds is a crime. Same with Judge. Those two simple acts alone along with questioning the other two people at the party that night should reveal quite a bit.
Click to expand...
Thanks. The other things I’m not clear about is will the FBI findings be made public or will they be classed as confidential? Will the senators get a copy of the questions and answers from those interviewed or will they just get a summary of the findings?
 
Frosty said:
I wonder whether all those people on the left who didn't vote for Hilary on the basis that she was pro-war, pro-Wall Street and far too right-wing are starting to regret that decision now.
Click to expand...

Why is this question never asked of the Hillary supporters and the DNC who saw the polls saying bernie would have beaten trump and insisted on Hillary anyway? Why dont we ask them if they have regrets or Robbie Mook if he regrets telling volunteers not to go to Michigan? Or Hillary Clinton if she regrets never going to Wisconsin? Or anyone involved in the Tim Kaine decision if they regret picking someone so devoid of charisma? Or John Podesta if he regrets elevating Donald Trump in the primaries? Or Neera Tanden if she regrets saying we should take Libya's oil?

Kavanaugh is clearly a horrible person on a personal level but when it comes down to how his decisions on the court affect people, hes no different than any other federalist society slimeball that trump would have nominated. The court was going to need to be packed anyway. DC and Puerto Rico statehood needed to happen anyway.

What kind of judge do you think Hillary Clinton could get past this senate? Alito lite most likely. Look at elena Kagan. Besides her not hating gay people she would fit right into the 1980s republican party.

I dont understand a position like yours unless you also applied it to Gorsuch. I dont understand how people can say that the answer to a party and an ideology that hates most of the people in this country and whose policies kill the poor on a daily basis is wet blanket liberalism.

I said the whole election process that I would never vote for Hillary and on election day I wavered but eventually didnt vote for her. I dont blame anyone who made the other decision. How each of us rationalizes it is up to them. But I couldn't vote for her knowing she had thousands of bodies on her and knowing that she learned no lessons from that and her presidency would cause thousands more deaths.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
You know the most vexing thing about all this?

Democrats have had many opportunities over the years to do the same, and they capitulated every times, always resorting to ‘finding a common ground’. Bizarrely, this only applies at federal level. They’ve had no issues gerrymandering at states level.
Click to expand...

It's a by-product of the 'party-identity' function/image, isn't it. When it comes to the front-lines issue of win-or-not-win they'll 'play the game', whilst innately they're the party of inclusion.
 
Eboue said:
Why is this question never asked of the Hillary supporters and the DNC who saw the polls saying bernie would have beaten trump and insisted on Hillary anyway? Why dont we ask them if they have regrets or Robbie Mook if he regrets telling volunteers not to go to Michigan? Or Hillary Clinton if she regrets never going to Wisconsin? Or anyone involved in the Tim Kaine decision if they regret picking someone so devoid of charisma? Or John Podesta if he regrets elevating Donald Trump in the primaries? Or Neera Tanden if she regrets saying we should take Libya's oil?

Kavanaugh is clearly a horrible person on a personal level but when it comes down to how his decisions on the court affect people, hes no different than any other federalist society slimeball that trump would have nominated. The court was going to need to be packed anyway. DC and Puerto Rico statehood needed to happen anyway.

What kind of judge do you think Hillary Clinton could get past this senate? Alito lite most likely. Look at elena Kagan. Besides her not hating gay people she would fit right into the 1980s republican party.

I dont understand a position like yours unless you also applied it to Gorsuch. I dont understand how people can say that the answer to a party and an ideology that hates most of the people in this country and whose policies kill the poor on a daily basis is wet blanket liberalism.

I said the whole election process that I would never vote for Hillary and on election day I wavered but eventually didnt vote for her. I dont blame anyone who made the other decision. How each of us rationalizes it is up to them. But I couldn't vote for her knowing she had thousands of bodies on her and knowing that she learned no lessons from that and her presidency would cause thousands more deaths.
Click to expand...

I would have voted for Hillary if the nomination process had been transparent.

the act of tarnishing Bernie by using John Lewis was the final straw for me.

In any case she scrapped through winning Minnesota.
 
Frosty said:
I wonder whether all those people on the left who didn't vote for Hilary on the basis that she was pro-war, pro-Wall Street and far too right-wing are starting to regret that decision now.
Click to expand...

Michael Moore has repeatedly debunked this weird and annoying myth. Bernie voters on the left were not the reason Clinton lost. Bernie voters voted for Clinton in greater numbers than Clinton voters in 2008 voted for Obama. The swing voters Moore identified long before the Nov. election that Clinton ignored were by and large working class centrists.

No voter should ever be blamed for voting for who they believe is the best candidate. The only ones who deserve blame are the DNC for ramming a horrible candidate down the voters throats with a ridiculous "its her turn" angle.

Also, maybe next time the Democrats will realize that you have no moral high ground to accuse Trump of being a womanizer when your standard bearer spent over a decade demonizing and attacking female accusers of her husband's sexual misconduct. There is probably not a women in the world with LESS #metoo credentials than DOMA/3 Strikes/Iraq War supporting HRClinton.
 
People praising Jeff Flake, jesus god.
 
Eboue said:
Why is this question never asked of the Hillary supporters and the DNC who saw the polls saying bernie would have beaten trump and insisted on Hillary anyway? Why dont we ask them if they have regrets or Robbie Mook if he regrets telling volunteers not to go to Michigan? Or Hillary Clinton if she regrets never going to Wisconsin? Or anyone involved in the Tim Kaine decision if they regret picking someone so devoid of charisma? Or John Podesta if he regrets elevating Donald Trump in the primaries? Or Neera Tanden if she regrets saying we should take Libya's oil?

Kavanaugh is clearly a horrible person on a personal level but when it comes down to how his decisions on the court affect people, hes no different than any other federalist society slimeball that trump would have nominated. The court was going to need to be packed anyway. DC and Puerto Rico statehood needed to happen anyway.

What kind of judge do you think Hillary Clinton could get past this senate? Alito lite most likely. Look at elena Kagan. Besides her not hating gay people she would fit right into the 1980s republican party.

I dont understand a position like yours unless you also applied it to Gorsuch. I dont understand how people can say that the answer to a party and an ideology that hates most of the people in this country and whose policies kill the poor on a daily basis is wet blanket liberalism.

I said the whole election process that I would never vote for Hillary and on election day I wavered but eventually didnt vote for her. I dont blame anyone who made the other decision. How each of us rationalizes it is up to them. But I couldn't vote for her knowing she had thousands of bodies on her and knowing that she learned no lessons from that and her presidency would cause thousands more deaths.
Click to expand...

Well said. Personally I am not even convinced a HRC justice would be much different than Kavanaugh. I don't believe the Republicans in power actually care about overturning Roe v. Wade. I think that's more just dog whistling to keep the evangelical block voting for them. But what they really care about - the massive move towards protecting corporations and the rich while disenfranchising the poor and working class - I have no confidence in former WalMart Board member HRC on that major issue. That's the only agenda that most of the Republicans in power really care about anyway. I am not convinced that HRC wouldn't have just nominated a judge who was simply verbally more supportive of Roe sure, but wouldn't have cared about trying to overturn Citizens Untied.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
Well said. Personally I am not even convinced a HRC justice would be much different than Kavanaugh. I don't believe the Republicans in power actually care about overturning Roe v. Wade. I think that's more just dog whistling to keep the evangelical block voting for them. But what they really care about - the massive move towards protecting corporations and the rich while disenfranchising the poor and working class - I have no confidence in former WalMart Board member HRC on that major issue. That's the only agenda that most of the Republicans in power really care about anyway. I am not convinced that HRC wouldn't have just nominated a judge who was simply verbally more supportive of Roe sure, but wouldn't have cared about trying to overturn Citizens Untied.
Click to expand...

Yeah I do agree with this but repubs will actually do stuff like overturn Roe because they have no respect for women or poor people or minorities. I don't think a dem nominated justice would actively feck over as many people as a repub one.
 
Grinner said:
Yeah I do agree with this but repubs will actually do stuff like overturn Roe because they have no respect for women or poor people or minorities. I don't think a dem nominated justice would actively feck over as many people as a repub one.
Click to expand...

As I said, I don't believe overturning Roe is actually something they are going to do or even give two fecks about. Trump certainly doesn't care about overturning Roe. I think they care far more about pushing the Citizens United type decisions to protect corporations more than they actually care about overturning Roe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.