New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

[ponderingturtle]

This is the kind of argument I'm talking about. Broad-brush arguments where you pick a few (or even just one) egregious cases and use them to damn a whole group of people. It's wrong and you are really making two arguments 1)This behavior is bad and 2)Because this person is X, all people who are X are the same. So if I present cases of people from all parties doing the same thing, it's not a response to the first argument at all; it's a response to the second argument. If you just want to argue that the behavior itself is wrong, I would have no argument with that and it would be wrong to bring up other cases just to say, "this is wrong too."

Hey at least it is about being married like republicans regularly fight to preserve the right for grown men to marry teen girls after all.

But hey this is america there is nothing wrong with parents forcing a 13 year old to marry her rapist.

 

[smartcooky]

Its pretty easy to come up with "no corroboration" when you

a. deliberately don't look for corroboration, and

b. ignore dozens of people who say they have corroborating statements to make

The so-called FBI investigation was a sham. They were never going to come up with anything when they were handcuffed and blindfolded from the outset, and then pushed down a narrow tunnel

And as it turns out, it was indeed, a sham....



A partial transcript below for those who don't want to watch the video

Seven Democratic Senators on Thursday said that newly released materials show the FBI failed to fully investigate sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh when he was nominated to the court in 2018.

The Senators, including Sheldon Whitehouse and Chris Coons, said a letter they received from the FBI last month shows the agency gathered over 4500 tips relating to Kavanaugh without any apparent further action by investigators.

Written by FBI Assistant Director Jill Tyson, the letter said the most relevant of the 4500 tips were referred to lawyers in President Donald Trump's White House, whose handling of them remains unclear. *¹. She added that the FBI had conducted a background check not a criminal investigation so quote the authorities policies and procedures used to investigate criminal matters did not apply.*². That didn't sit well with Democrats who sent a letter to FBI director Christopher Wray this week, in which Senator Coons wrote "If the FBI
was not authorized to, or did not follow up on any of the tips that it received from the tip line, it is difficult to understand the point of having a tip line at all"

An FBI spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Thursday. A lawyer for Kavanaugh during his confirmation battle also did not immediately respond to a request for Comment

[Christine Blasey]Ford's lawyer said in a statement that the new revelations show the FBI investigation was of limited value.​

*1 - What the actual ****!? Isn't that a conflict of interest?

*2 - So the relevant information about person's lack of suitability as a judge shows up in the background check.... and they're not investigated? Really?

 

[Aridas]

And as it turns out, it was indeed, a sham....

Obviously so at the time, as noted, and time has just made it all the more clear that it was a sham. I seem to recall this hitting the news a little bit ago, either way, but I see nothing wrong with a round 2.

*1 - What the actual ****!? Isn't that a conflict of interest?

I... don't see how it would be a conflict of interest, specifically? Rather than a conflict of interest, it seems more like outright mishandling of information, even more egregiously if the information wasn't used to serve its ostensible official use in the first place. The only relatively innocuous potential use that I can think of off the top of my head might be for those lawyers to review for the sake of advising Trump on whether to withdraw the pick or not and the chances of it being used for that are somewhere between "Ha" and ridiculous.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I look forward to watching there being absolutely no consequences for this.

 

[smartcooky]

I look forward to watching there being absolutely no consequences for this.

Unfortunately, I think you are probably right. Its too late now, and even if they were able to get as far as an impeachment trial (which I doubt), it would still require a 2/3 majority in the Senate to convict.

In any case, Kavanaugh hasn't (yet at least) turned out to be quite the little GOP yes man Moscow Mitch might have been hoping for.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

and with this hanging over him, Brett Beer might think twice about seriously messing with core Democrat holy cows, such as pro choice.

 

[smartcooky]

and with this hanging over him, Brett Beer might think twice about seriously messing with core Democrat holy cows, such as pro choice.

This is what is meant by the Russian word "компромет" (compromising material). It's why judges should not have serious skeletons in their closets that can later be used to coerce "decisions".

 

[The Great Zaganza]

If I understand the FBI "investigation" correctly, what happened is this:
the White House can use the FBI as its personal Private Dicks to do research on their candidates, and the product is reserved for the President. There are no clear rules about how to do such an investigation and what to do if the FBI finds violations of the law in the process.

I can see why this makes sense, as the White House must be able to have candidates vetted without fear of being dragged into to scandal or creating a huge diversion. If the FBI had to report all issues to the DOJ, the White House might just skip vetting candidates, which would be worse.
But it would be better to have the White House use private companies instead of taxpayer funded law enforcement.

 

[Aridas]

In any case, Kavanaugh hasn't (yet at least) turned out to be quite the little GOP yes man Moscow Mitch might have been hoping for.

I'd not be so sure of that. Acting as a true believer of public GOP propaganda, no matter how blatantly false or inane, is not the same as acting with the interests of the Republican Party in the foreground.

 

[Segnosaur]

I'd not be so sure of that. Acting as a true believer of public GOP propaganda, no matter how blatantly false or inane, is not the same as acting with the interests of the Republican Party in the foreground.

Exactly.

Drunky McRapeface wants to push the right-wing agenda, but he's smarter at it than Stubby McBonespurs. If the supreme court sided with Trump but still failed to overturn the election (a likely event), it probably would have caused a backlash, and maybe even resulted in the Democrats more willing to pack the supreme court.

 

[dirtywick]

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp/shows/maddow/blog/rcna174652

new report on the fbi investigation into the kavanaugh allegations that cleared him for confirmation says exactly what you already knew it was going to say

 

[Stacyhs]

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp/shows/maddow/blog/rcna174652

new report on the fbi investigation into the kavanaugh allegations that cleared him for confirmation says exactly what you already knew it was going to say

This wouldn't surprise me one bit.