Jarqui
Jarqui's JournalWhy is the decision on Kavanaugh so difficult?
I was reading about how they select and verify a Supreme Court Justice here:
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44234.pdf
that document has quotes like:
* “In addition to the obvious criteria any nominee for the Supreme Court ought to have—I suppose any nominee for any position on the judiciary ought to have—those of intellect, of integrity, and of judicial temperament, it is very appropriate of the Senate to inquire into a nominee’s judicial philosophy. Of course, that includes the nominee’s fidelity to the Constitution.”
Sen. Charles E. Grassley
* the “more appropriate standard” was that the nominee “have outstanding legal ability and wide experience and meet the highest standards of integrity, judicial temperament, and professional competence.”
* “When I face a Supreme Court nominee I have three questions: Is he or she competent? Does she or he possess the highest personal and professional integrity? And, third, will he or she protect and defend the core constitutional values and guarantees around free of speech, religion, equal protection of the law, and the right of privacy?”
Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski
* By contrast, Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), in testimony before the subcommittee, declared that
there “are myriad reasons why political ideology has not been—and is not—an appropriate
measure of judicial qualifications. Fundamentally,” he continued, “the Senate’s responsibility to
provide advice and consent does not include an ideological litmus test because a nominee’s
personal opinions are largely irrelevant so long as the nominee can set those opinions aside and
follow the law fairly and impartially as a judge.”
Kavanaugh has already been very questionable in terms of integrity while answering questions on torture during his years at the Bush White House, Judge Pickering, $200,000 credit card debt, an OSHA case, emails stolen from Democrats, Roe v Wade, disgraced Judge Kozinski from sexual misconduct allegations, etc.
But lets ignore those for the moment though many seem disqualifying to me and others.
Dr. Ford reluctantly came forward with allegations. Those allegations have been substantiated by passing a lie detector test, 2012 and 2013 therapist notes and some witnesses - some we have yet to hear from. Articles like this point to her credibility
https://www.vox.com/first-person/2018/9/18/17874504/kavanaugh-assault-allegation-christine-blasey-ford
In response to Dr. Ford's allegations, we have witnessed things like this:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=11164736
We might be concerned some with statute of limitations with respect to Dr. Ford's claims. But to me, there are no statute of limitations on Kavanagh's recent response to Dr. Ford.
Kavanaugh has rejected due process for Dr. Ford. By sitting on his hands, he has rejected an investigation by the FBI to get to the bottom of the facts. He has aligned himself with people smearing Dr. Ford, bullying her and slamming the door on examining her claims fairly.
That to me is not conduct becoming a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Such a Justice would demonstrate possession of "high standards of integrity" by welcoming a FBI investigation and witnesses and evidence to clear his good name and "follow the law fairly and impartially" to deliver due process to Dr. Ford transparently - for all to see.
Kavanaugh through his inaction to date has failed to do that. In doing so, Kavanaugh revealed without any reasonable doubt that he lacks the "high standards of integrity" cited in the document above on selecting a Justice for the Supreme Court and he showed that he cannot be relied upon to "follow the law fairly and impartially"
Kavanaugh has already disqualified himself with his response to Dr. Ford's claims.
How is this a "witch hunt"?
Manafort recommended banker who gave him loans for Army secretary
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/07/politics/manafort-calk-army-secretary/index.html
Paul Manafort recommended a banker who allegedly loaned him money under false pretenses be nominated as President Donald Trump's Army secretary, Rick Gates testified Tuesday.
Gates, who was working on Trump's transition team, testified that Manafort had suggested Stephen Calk as a candidate for Army secretary two weeks after Trump was elected.
Manafort was Trump's campaign chairman in summer 2016 but resigned before the election. Gates, Manafort's longtime business partner and Trump's deputy campaign chairman, was working on the transition team and the inauguration.
"We need to discuss Steve Calk for Sec of Army," Manafort wrote to Gates on Nov. 24, 2016, in an email prosecutors showed the jury. He signed the email as "P."
Manafort emailed Gates again two days before Christmas in 2016. He told Gates he had attached contact information for various people he wanted to go to Trump's inauguration. That list included Calk and his son.
Here's a link from that article which further substantiates the article:
https://democrats-oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/2018-04-12.EEC%20Lynch%20to%20CEO%20Steve%20Calk%20re.%20loans%20to%20Paul%20Manafort.pdf
Beyond ample evidence of hiding foreign bank accounts, tax evasion and fraud obtaining bank loans in this particular criminal case against Manafort, how does the above square with 'nothing to see here - this is just a witch hunt of someone trying to sell a position as secretary of the army in exchange for a $16 million bank loan'?
This 'witch hunt' claim reminds me of the 'death panels' claim.
Why is an ex-campaign chair able to make such a proposal during the Trump transition?
I think Trump and Sarah Sanders ought to be hammered with questions on this - to demand an answer why having a court look at this conduct is a 'witch hunt'.
Trump declined giving Rod Blagojevich clemency ....
Investigation of Trump's threats against women
You may recall this Nov 2016 allegation:
Woman who accused Donald Trump of raping her at 13 drops lawsuit
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/04/donald-trump-teenage-rape-accusations-lawsuit-dropped
https://www.scribd.com/doc/316341058/Donald-Trump-Jeffrey-Epstein-Rape-Lawsuit-and-Affidavits
Here's the video of her lawyer, Lisa Bloom, announcing she was too frightened to go through with the press conference and lawsuit because of the threats
Here is Stormy outlining her experience of being threatened
So Stormy sat down with Lois Gibson, a top composite sketch artist and ..
Sketch of man who Stormy Daniels says threatened her to be released
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/09/politics/michael-avenatti-sketch-cnntv/index.html
But they didn't release it ...
Because they have been cooperating with law enforcement and were asked to not make the sketch public yet.
There is a good chance that if a person is making threats like this, they are being paid and it would be logical that they would be paid by the "fixer" who represents the accused if a fixer exists because the accused is the key one who benefits most from the delivery of an effective threat.
That rape victim bailing out of her press conference always stuck with me. It seemed pretty chilling and sincere. And there may be traces of large sums of money to settle out of court as part of the withdrawal of the lawsuit ... which might have gone through one of Cohen's fake companies ....
How could the FBI not be looking at this? It appears from what Avenatti said that they are.
If the FBI were suspicious of this and had some potential evidence of it, that could be a pretty compelling story for a judge when it came to considering overriding attorney-client privilege with search warrants.
If I were an FBI agent looking into this, I would want to know the specifics of why that rape victim bailed out on that press conference. She probably was entitled to her day in court.
If they catch Trump & Cohen doing this, they're finished.
Shine the bright lights on these cockroaches and watch them scurry. I suspect that is a part of what is going on here.
More charges could be coming against former Trump aide in Russia probe
Source: CNN
(CNN)Robert Mueller may not be through with Rick Gates, a deputy Trump campaign aide and one of the four people who have been charged as part of the special counsel probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
In a court appearance Monday in Manhattan, Gates' attorney Walter Mack said that federal prosecutors have told him that more charges, called superseding indictments, may be coming.
"We don't know what the government is going to do," Mack said in court, referring to both Gates' case and a white-collar case in New York involving one of Gates' business partners. "I mean, in both cases we've been told that there may be a superseder. We don't know what's happening."
Mueller charged President Donald Trump's former campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his deputy, Gates, on October 30 with 12 alleged crimes related to money laundering and foreign lobbying violations. Both have pleaded not guilty. The charges against Manafort and Gates are unrelated to the Trump campaign, though it's possible Mueller could add additional federal charges.
Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/05/politics/rick-gates-indictments/index.html
We do not absolutely need a tape of the meeting with the Russians May 10th ...
White House counterterrorism adviser Tom Bossert, who was not in the May 10 meeting, learned about what Trump said when he read notes immediately afterward, a U.S. official with direct knowledge told NBC News. He immediately called officials at the CIA and the National Security Agency to report a security breach, the official said.
Trump's own people noted the compromise in their notes that Bossert read.
Vlad, you can sit this one out!
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-putin-idUSKCN18D1EA
Nance: "these are people who hunt America's enemies within the U.S."
https://twitter.com/NetworkJunkyz/status/862767192080867330Stuff like the above is making me feel a little better about all of this.
It's a tragic place for a new administration to be for every American.
But "Truth, Justice and the American Way" can prevail if these people get to do their jobs and their results are prosecuted.
FBI agents are changing their FB profile pictures to Comey
https://twitter.com/woodruffbets/status/862647144230072320more evidence of Trump's BS
https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/862766471109369856
How does Jeff Sessions square his letter firing Comey with this video
when he defends Comey for doing what he did in October and before?
Googled Image of Sessions Letter:
I note Sessions letter stands behind his deputy's allegations linked here:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/09/politics/fbi-james-comey-fired-letter/
Youtube Video from October 2016
Sen. Sessions on the FBI’s new investigation of Clinton’s email case
In that video above, Sessions says:
"He (Comey) had to tell the American people .. rather than keep it secret because if it is different than what he told the congress in his testimony and the American people uh then he had to correct it."
"I didn't like the meeting on the airplane (of Lynch and Clinton) ... it put Comey in a position where he had to make this announcement..."
"... And now he's (Comey) stepped up and done what his duty is I think"
"He's got evidence to go forward now with further criminal investigation. He has no other responsibility than to follow that and then tell the American people what he is doing.
"I think it's significant. Otherwise, he wouldn't have done it."
How do you keep a two faced, lying sack of shit like Sessions (who already perjured himself on Russia) as Attorney General of the United States when by basically his own admission in prior statements (above), blatantly conjures up contradictory bullshit to fire the FBI Director who is investigating him and his boss for their ties to Russians that messed with the general election?
This is way beyond Watergate.
Why wasn't Trey Gowdy outraged by leaks related to Clinton emails
investigation along with the rest of the GOP? The hacking of classified Secretary of State emails was a national security issue. The Inspector General for the Intelligence Community was involved as was Comey and the FBI.
Why didn't Trey go after those leakers who provided info on the case to the media?
Rhetorical question?
Without those leakers, Flynn would still be Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency and National Security Adviser to Trump and Comey might not be so pressured to look into Russia's involvement with Trump.
For 24 million more Americans, it's dirt cheap!!
.. as in the dirt tossed on their coffins ..
Profile Information
Member since: Sun Aug 23, 2015, 03:58 PMNumber of posts: 10,125