Bitcoin Forum
September 21, 2019, 06:18:55 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh  (Read 10318 times)
Flying Hellfish
Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582
Merit: 1701


Impeach 45


View Profile
October 01, 2018, 05:44:58 AM
 #221



The FBI along with pretty much every branch of law enforcement has policies against just starting investigations because people demand it, a criminal complaint is required.

What a shame it is that the FBI is not able to do some kind of investigation into a persons background who's applying for a sensitive federal job.

Maybe one day the American people will wise up and mandate the FBI take on this role because with out alleging a crime the FBI would never be able to find out if a federal employee was say a commy or terrorist in hiding.  Come to think of it there must be some high level operatives from bad actors in some very high government positions since they couldn't have had their backgrounds investigated without someone alleging a crime.  Damn you guys better get on that shit before it gets out of hand...

BTW your President ORDERED the FBI to do a supplemental background check (investigation) on this nom, just like many Presidents have done many times in the past because new information...

████████████████████████████
████████▀▀ █▀ █▀ ▀██████████
█████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
██████████▀     ▀  ▀████████
███████▀ ▀  ▄█▀▀▀█▀▀████████
██████▄      █▄  ▀▀  ▀██████
██████         ▄▄█▄ ▄ ▀█████
█████ ▄         ▀▀ ▄ ▀ █████
██████▌          █▀█▀ ▐█████
███████  ▄▌         ▄ ██████
████████▄█         ▄████████
█████████▀     ▄▄ ▄█████████
████████████████████████████
.JACKMATE'S...........
.
MAJESTIC..
████████████████████████
███████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
.
..WIN 1 BITCOIN ON EVERY PREMIER LEAGUE MATCHDAY..
████████████████████████████████
████████████▀█▀ ▀█▀█▀███████████
███████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄████████████
███████████▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
█████████▀▄ ██▀▄▄▄ ▀ ▄▀█████████
███████▀ ▀█████▄▄▄█▄▄▄██████████
███████▀▄████████▀  ▀█ █▐███████
███████ ▀█████████▄█▀▀██ ███████
████████ ███▀██████ ▄ ██ ███████
████████▌▐▀▄ ██████████ ▄███████
█████████▄██▌▐█████▀██ █████████
████████████▄▀▀▀▀▀▄ ▀▄██████████
████████████████████████████████
.
.JOIN US - IT'S FREE! .
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1569089935
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1569089935

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1569089935
Reply with quote  #2

1569089935
Report to moderator
1569089935
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1569089935

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1569089935
Reply with quote  #2

1569089935
Report to moderator
1569089935
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1569089935

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1569089935
Reply with quote  #2

1569089935
Report to moderator
Spendulus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2366
Merit: 1182



View Profile
October 01, 2018, 08:13:37 AM
 #222

...
BTW your President ORDERED the FBI to do a supplemental background check (investigation) on this nom, just like many Presidents have done many times in the past because new information...

Geez, we could use them for all kinds of things.

Let's have them figure out if Elizabeth Warren is really an Indian like she says she is?



Moloch
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798
Merit: 719



View Profile
October 01, 2018, 12:36:10 PM
Merited by Foxpup (2), Flying Hellfish (1)
 #223

...
BTW your President ORDERED the FBI to do a supplemental background check (investigation) on this nom, just like many Presidents have done many times in the past because new information...

Geez, we could use them for all kinds of things.

Let's have them figure out if Elizabeth Warren is really an Indian like she says she is?

Do you always blame a scape-goat, or only on bitcointalk?

re: False Equivalence Fallacy

Quote
False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which two completely opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.
Spendulus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2366
Merit: 1182



View Profile
October 01, 2018, 02:20:49 PM
 #224

...
BTW your President ORDERED the FBI to do a supplemental background check (investigation) on this nom, just like many Presidents have done many times in the past because new information...

Geez, we could use them for all kinds of things.

Let's have them figure out if Elizabeth Warren is really an Indian like she says she is?

Do you always blame a scape-goat, or only on bitcointalk?

re: False Equivalence Fallacy

Quote
False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which two completely opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.
Hey, I got an idea.

We could use that FBI to find out about this Russia Collusion that Trump has.

Right? You used to talk about Russia Collusion a lot. Why so silent recently?
CoinCube
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1037



View Profile
October 01, 2018, 04:42:13 PM
Last edit: October 01, 2018, 04:59:31 PM by CoinCube
 #225

....
The Senate has requested a supplemental FBI investigation to help them in their decision making and that is underway.

I think people may not understand the limits of "an FBI investigation" in this case. The FBI cannot issue subpoenas, the Senate committee can. The FBI cannot compel people to testify. Without subpoena power, the FBI cannot get phone records, email records or bank records.

The four people named by Ford have already produced sworn statements that they were not there, that the party did not happen, blah-blah-blah. They cannot change those statements without being under penalty of perjury.

The bet that should be made at this junction is whether one of the major Democratic operatives, such as Creepy Porn Lawyer, comes up with yet another delaying tactic at the last hour of the last day of the FBI investigation. You know they will.

A lot of people blindly worship the three letter agencies  FBI, CIA, NSA. When the FBI investigation finds no evidence supporting the accusations as is highly likely it will help wake some of the half asleep people.

It was not particularly logical to outsource this investigation to the FBI as you note. It is really is the Senate's job and they have the power to compel testimony under oath.

However the far left is not a particularly logical entirely and as a whole more motivated by identity politics and feelings. Traditional liberals who historically valued individual freedoms are marginalised and hold no power in today's left. Indeed liberalism today increasingly has more in common with conservatism than it does with leftism.

No matter what happens now Kavanaugh is going be be thought of as a dangerous rapist by a third of the country. USA today ran an article saying he was too dangerous to be allowed to coach his daughters basketball team. Nevertheless going through this week long FBI investigation will allow him to clear his name as much as is possible without allowing this tactic of last second uncorroborated allegation derail his nomination.

It's smart politics and probably the best possible response to this circus.

I won't take you up on that bet, however, as another attempt at delay after the FBI investigation is done seems almost a given at this point. However, that will be the time to vote which is what I expect the Senate will do.

criptix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2016
Merit: 1085


View Profile
October 01, 2018, 05:22:22 PM
 #226

....
The Senate has requested a supplemental FBI investigation to help them in their decision making and that is underway.

I think people may not understand the limits of "an FBI investigation" in this case. The FBI cannot issue subpoenas, the Senate committee can. The FBI cannot compel people to testify. Without subpoena power, the FBI cannot get phone records, email records or bank records.

The four people named by Ford have already produced sworn statements that they were not there, that the party did not happen, blah-blah-blah. They cannot change those statements without being under penalty of perjury.

The bet that should be made at this junction is whether one of the major Democratic operatives, such as Creepy Porn Lawyer, comes up with yet another delaying tactic at the last hour of the last day of the FBI investigation. You know they will.

A lot of people blindly worship the three letter agencies  FBI, CIA, NSA. When the FBI investigation finds no evidence supporting the accusations as is highly likely it will help wake some of the half asleep people.

It was not particularly logical to outsource this investigation to the FBI as you note. It is really is the Senate's job and they have the power to compel testimony under oath.

However the far left is not a particularly logical entirely and as a whole more motivated by identity politics and feelings. Traditional liberals who historically valued individual freedoms are marginalised and hold no power in today's left. Indeed liberalism today increasingly has more in common with conservatism than it does with leftism.

No matter what happens now Kavanaugh is going be be thought of as a dangerous rapist by a third of the country. USA today ran an article saying he was too dangerous to be allowed to coach his daughters basketball team. Nevertheless going through this week long FBI investigation will allow him to clear his name as much as is possible without allowing this tactic of last second uncorroborated allegation derail his nomination.

It's smart politics and probably the best possible response to this circus.

I won't take you up on that bet, however, as another attempt at delay after the FBI investigation is done seems almost a given at this point. However, that will be the time to vote which is what I expect the Senate will do.

What can the US senate do?

Can they only put people under oath and ask them stuff, or do they do investigations like law enforcement?

Would appreciate if anyone can explain it.
suchmoon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2072
Merit: 3948


Pedal-powered plaguebot


View Profile
October 01, 2018, 05:53:00 PM
 #227

It was not particularly logical to outsource this investigation to the FBI as you note. It is really is the Senate's job and they have the power to compel testimony under oath.

Has the Senate actually subpoenaed anyone with regards to Kavanaugh? Subpoenas can't be issued by the minority so they're unlikely to be of much use when there is no bipartisan agreement as to the scope of the investigation.

Spendulus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2366
Merit: 1182



View Profile
October 01, 2018, 07:05:08 PM
 #228

....

I won't take you up on that bet, however, as another attempt at delay after the FBI investigation is done seems almost a given at this point....

Of course you won't take that bet. And all of the posers on this forum claiming they are concerned about the rape charges won't either. Because every single gambit for delays is going to be played, because that's all it's about.


It was not particularly logical to outsource this investigation to the FBI as you note. It is really is the Senate's job and they have the power to compel testimony under oath.

Has the Senate actually subpoenaed anyone with regards to Kavanaugh? Subpoenas can't be issued by the minority so they're unlikely to be of much use when there is no bipartisan agreement as to the scope of the investigation.

No. Generally a subpoena would be if someone didn't voluntarily show up. And I disagree about "cannot be issued by the minority" more likely the head of the committee issues them without needing a vote of any sort. For something like that, he  likely would do one if a minority member sought it and it wasn't outside the scope or some looney thing.

Note that when a subpoena was issued, then the defense counsel would be able to request a different date, and they could do that several times. There's the delay game play. They'd love that, because that's all they want.

But remember please this is not frivolous stuff. A subpoena or not, you go to that committee you likely must have an attorney and immediately you are out $10-100k. Of course that's not the case if you are backed by big money interests like Ford. She is not the one paying those attorneys.

A lot of people would find a pattern of sexual abuse by a SC nominee material and of interest. But some stuff in high school or college they would not care about. The arguments by Ford are very weak accusations, insufficient to disqualify.

It is interesting that public arguments are actually being made now that the accusation should be enough to disqualify, which means literally anyone can be disqualified for anything at the whim of a third party. It's unfortunate the "me-too" movement has now been abused and raped for political advantage.

I hope this disgusting attempt to ruin a man for their own gain backfires on the Democrats big time.
TECSHARE
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2996
Merit: 1428


First Exclusion Ever


View Profile WWW
October 02, 2018, 01:48:36 AM
 #229



The FBI along with pretty much every branch of law enforcement has policies against just starting investigations because people demand it, a criminal complaint is required.

What a shame it is that the FBI is not able to do some kind of investigation into a persons background who's applying for a sensitive federal job.

Maybe one day the American people will wise up and mandate the FBI take on this role because with out alleging a crime the FBI would never be able to find out if a federal employee was say a commy or terrorist in hiding.  Come to think of it there must be some high level operatives from bad actors in some very high government positions since they couldn't have had their backgrounds investigated without someone alleging a crime.  Damn you guys better get on that shit before it gets out of hand...

BTW your President ORDERED the FBI to do a supplemental background check (investigation) on this nom, just like many Presidents have done many times in the past because new information...

A 35 year old "new" ACCUSATION, held until the last moment after 6 background checks. Convenient you just totally ignore the left leaning publication that totally supports my assertions. They demand investigations all the while refusing to file charges. They purposely created the conditions to ensure there would be no investigation and then just expected demands to be enough to violate some ones rights. No charges were filed because FILING FALSE CHARGES IS A SERIOUS CRIME, and they know this.

THIS SPACE FOR RENT  Did I post something you found helpful? Send me a tip: 1Hz3HZT4v8qxtyYiRQ66UHTUSK3dKCnVMW
bluefirecorp_
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 378
Merit: 117


View Profile
October 02, 2018, 06:45:19 PM
 #230

Kavanaugh logic

Spendulus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2366
Merit: 1182



View Profile
October 02, 2018, 11:22:17 PM
 #231

Kavanaugh logic

... nonsense ....

I've known a LOT of people who "drank too much," and "blackouts" are very uncommon.
bluefirecorp_
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 378
Merit: 117


View Profile
October 03, 2018, 12:54:13 AM
 #232

Kavanaugh logic

... nonsense ....

I've known a LOT of people who "drank too much," and "blackouts" are very uncommon.

What about that perjury?

Spendulus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2366
Merit: 1182



View Profile
October 03, 2018, 01:06:18 AM
 #233

Kavanaugh logic

... nonsense ....

I've known a LOT of people who "drank too much," and "blackouts" are very uncommon.

What about that perjury?....
How about that Russia collusion?

I'm getting pretty sick of all this nonsense.
bluefirecorp_
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 378
Merit: 117


View Profile
October 03, 2018, 01:15:55 AM
 #234

Kavanaugh logic

... nonsense ....

I've known a LOT of people who "drank too much," and "blackouts" are very uncommon.

What about that perjury?....
How about that Russia collusion?

I'm getting pretty sick of all this nonsense.

Literally direct evidence of a violation of federal law by lying under oath.

Yet you refuse to accept it as evidence. ._.
Spendulus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2366
Merit: 1182



View Profile
October 03, 2018, 01:42:27 AM
Last edit: October 03, 2018, 01:56:48 AM by Spendulus
Merited by TECSHARE (1)
 #235

Kavanaugh logic

... nonsense ....

I've known a LOT of people who "drank too much," and "blackouts" are very uncommon.

What about that perjury?....
How about that Russia collusion?

I'm getting pretty sick of all this nonsense.

Literally direct evidence of a violation of federal law by lying under oath.

Yet you refuse to accept it as evidence. ._.

No, I refuse to accept your bogus repeating of fake news.

Look at this nonsense. First sexual assault, then gang rape, then the rape at the boat party, then after all that dissolves ..... He threw some ice at a guy in a bar.

But regardless, it won't work. My prediction is the Senate is going to vote in very short order and will confirm the guy. And the ordinary Americans are going to be pretty angry about this entire thing, and they will show that anger in the mid terms.

Are you curious why Trump got elected?

It was exactly this sort of stuff that people are totally sick of.
bluefirecorp_
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 378
Merit: 117


View Profile
October 03, 2018, 02:13:00 AM
Last edit: October 03, 2018, 02:25:22 AM by bluefirecorp_
 #236

Kavanaugh logic

... nonsense ....

I've known a LOT of people who "drank too much," and "blackouts" are very uncommon.

What about that perjury?....
How about that Russia collusion?

I'm getting pretty sick of all this nonsense.

Literally direct evidence of a violation of federal law by lying under oath.

Yet you refuse to accept it as evidence. ._.

No, I refuse to accept your bogus repeating of fake news.

Look at this nonsense. First sexual assault, then gang rape, then the rape at the boat party, then after all that dissolves ..... He threw some ice at a guy in a bar.

But regardless, it won't work. My prediction is the Senate is going to vote in very short order and will confirm the guy. And the ordinary Americans are going to be pretty angry about this entire thing, and they will show that anger in the mid terms.

Are you curious why Trump got elected?

It was exactly this sort of stuff that people are totally sick of.

Trump was elected due to a disinformation campaign from a foreign hostile nation state entity according to reports that I've read.

Now, you bash this as fake news, but in reality, it's not. There's actual evidence from multiple independent sources that say this guy lied under oath.

Also, let's put something he said to the smell test;

"I'm was a football captain"

"I went to parties and got drunk in highschool"

"I never had sexual contact with anyone during highschool or for several years after highschool".

So, a partying, drinking, highschool football captain never got laid during highschool? I'd call absolute bollocks on that fact alone. Dude has no right to lie to the American public about this shit.

You gotta remember, senates exist to represent the population, so if they refuse to represent their population, of course there's going to be fallout.


Edit: Turns out he's a shit judge too:

Quote
In one of his earliest opinions, Jane Doe v. DC, 489 F.3d 376 (D.C. Cir. 2007), Judge Kavanaugh overruled U.S. District Judge Henry Kennedy’s preliminary injunction, 374 F.Supp.2d 107 (D.D.C. 2005) and later summary judgment and permanent injunction, 232 F.R.D. 18 (D.D.C. 2005) and said that even when a severely intellectually disabled person expresses that they do not want an unnecessary elective surgery, the government can still impose that surgery against their wishes without violating constitutional or statutory rights.

Brian Hundley was a 41-year old graduate of Howard University School of Dentistry studying for his boards. He was sitting in his car, unarmed, when a 6’3”, 204-pound off- duty police officer in street clothes ordered him to get out, and in short order shot and killed him with his 9mm Glock. The officer said he shot Brian because he moved his hand behind his back, but the jury specifically rejected that story in a special interrogatory verdict, and found for Brian’s surviving loved ones. In Hundley v. DC, 494 F.3d 1097 (D.C. Cir. 2007), however, Judge Kavanaugh overruled the jury and found for the officer. The opinion describes the facts from the officer’s point of view, id., despite the jury rejecting the officer’s story. As we have already been taught as 1Ls, in a situation like this, the judge is supposed to be deferential to the jury and state the facts in a light favorable to sustaining the jury’s verdict. But this early opinion was just one of Judge Kavanaugh’s regular departures from federal rules and constitutional standards.

Seventeen-year old Antonio Hester was sentenced to a maximum of ten years in prison as a minor. He had a learning disability, and DC public schools, which had been providing him special education for years, promised to continue to provide those services while he was incarcerated in Maryland, or, if they were not allowed into the prison, to provide compensatory services after his release. The Maryland prison did prevent DC from entering to provide Antonio with services, however, and DC then refused to provide services after release. U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler held that DC had backed out of a consent decree and ordered the school district to provide Antonio with compensatory services. 433 F.Supp.2d 71 (D.D.C. 2006). Judge Kavanaugh disagreed, however, and not only reversed summary judgment but – glossing over a factual dispute he had with the district court (not the job of an appellate judge) and Judge Kessler’s legal analysis – directed judgment against Antonio, erasing any chance of educational relief. Hester v. DC, 505 F.3d 1283 (D.C. Cir. 2007).

Judge Kavanaugh is no friend to liberty. In U.S. v. Bullock, 510 F.3d 342 (D.C. Cir. 2007) Kavanaugh justified ordering a person out of his car, detaining him, and searching his crotch area and under his pants by saying that the police had a “reasonable suspicion” that the car was stolen because the person “could not produce registration and could not name the car's owner,” 510 F.3d at 345–46. But the arrestee had given the car owner’s first name and his own driver’s license, and the police had confirmed that the driver’s license was clean and the car had never been reported missing or stolen. Judge Kavanaugh’s opinion upheld the arrestee’s 12-year prison sentence for possession of crack cocaine. Judge Kavanaugh consistently rules for the government in search-and-seizure. U.S. v. Glover, 681 F.3d 411 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (warrantless entry into house & a later search warrant lacking probable cause), U.S. v. Washington, 559 F.3d 573 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (giving deference to “aggressive traffic patrols” in “high crime areas”), U.S. v. Spencer, 530 F.3d 1003 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (permitting search of home), U.S. v. Askew, 529 F.3d 1119 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (dissenting from en banc opinion) (allowing police officers to partially unzip man’s jacket without consent after a pat down and later, after man was not identified by witness, to fully unzip the jacket).

When Judge Kavanaugh has ruled for a criminal defendant on a point of law, he has specifically noted that it made little to no material difference in the outcome for the defendant. U.S. v. Smith, 640 F.3d 358, 361 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (“The vacatur and remand of the felon-in-possession count does not affect Smith's term of imprisonment”). Hamdan v. United States, 696 F.3d 1238, 1257, 1257 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 2012), overruled by Al Bahlul v. United States, 767 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (“Hamdan was transferred in late 2008 to Yemen and then released there . . . . Our judgment would not preclude detention of Hamdan until the end of U.S. hostilities against al Qaeda[,] [n]or . . . any future military commission charges against Hamdan. . . [,] [n]or . . . appropriate criminal charges in civilian court.”); US v. Bostick, 791 F.3d 127, 162 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (“We affirm the judgments of conviction . . . . two of the defendants . . . are entitled to vacatur . . . and to resentencing under the advisory Sentencing Guidelines. . . The [life] sentence of the remaining defendant . . . is affirmed. We also remand for . . . technical corrections . . . .”); US v. Williams, 784 F.3d 798, 804 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (“We affirm the judgment of the District Court except that, consistent with this Court's ordinary practice in these circumstances, we remand the case so that the District Court may address Williams's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in the first instance.”); US v. Nwoye, 824 F.3d 1129, 1133–34 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (“In 2013, after the termination of her supervised release, Nwoye filed a motion to vacate her conviction . . . [w]e reverse the judgment of the District Court and remand for further proceedings.”) (note that this case has been upheld as evidence of Judge Kavanaugh’s sympathy for criminal defendants and women; it should be noted that Judge Tatel had already dissented from the court’s affirmance of the conviction years earlier, 663 F.3d 460 (D.C. Cir. 2011), and Judge Kavanaugh’s ruling happened after the defendant had completed her sentence – and he nonetheless said the case was “close.”); US v. Burnett, 827 F.3d 1108, 1112 (D.C. Cir.) (“We affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence in all respects, except that we vacate Burnett’s sentence and remand for the District Court to resentence Burnett.”);

In U.S. v. Lathern, 488 F.3d 1043 (D.C. Cir. 2007), Kavanaugh allowed the exclusion of exculpatory testimony from a defendant’s witness and expert witness in upholding an 8-year /97-month prison sentence. Other rulings in favor of long sentences include US v. Franklin, 663 F.3d 1289 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (life sentence); U.S. v. Duvall, 705 F.3d 479 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (ruling against retroactive correction of crack cocaine disparity); U.S. v. Wright, 745 F.3d 1231 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (ruling against defendant in case alleging attorney conflict of interest); U.S. v. Haight, 892 F.3d 1271 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (reversing a 12 year, 8 month sentence and vacating because it should be at least a 15 year mandatory minimum sentence); U.S. v. Knight, 824 F.3d 1105 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (rejecting speedy trial act and due process claims and a number of challenges to sentences).

By way of contrast: When Carlos Gustavo Gardellini filed a false federal tax return and illegally used offshore accounts, the federal guidelines called for a 10- to 16-month prison sentence. But Judge Kavanaugh, U.S. v. Gardellini, 545 F.3d 1089 (D.C. Cir. 2008), upheld a no-prison-time sentence with five years of probation in Belgium for this white collar criminal with his wife and child, and none of the normal probation conditions or restrictions. Judge Williams dissented. In U.S. v. Settles, 530 F.3d 920 (D.C. Cir. 2008), Judge Kavanaugh held that it was permissible for the district court to consider alleged conduct for which the defendant was acquitted in calculating a criminal sentence using the factors in the sentencing guidelines.

In Omar v. McHugh, 646 F.3d 13 (D.C. Cir. 2011), Judge Kavanaugh held that American citizens have no Constitutional habeas corpus or due process rights to judicial review of whether they are likely to be tortured if they are transferred from U.S. to (in this case) Iraqi custody.

In Harbury v. Hayden, 522 F.3d 413 (D.C. Cir. 2008), Judge Kavanaugh ruled that CIA employees who tortured and killed Guatemalans could not be held accountable in US courts for their violations of international and US law.

Over a dissent, in Jackson v. Gonzalez, 496 F.3d 703 (D.C. Cir. 2007), Kavanaugh threw out a black prison guard’s claim of discrimination, not even allowing it to go to trial, where the guard had shown evidence that he scored 98 out of 100 on qualification exams and that the prison kept positions open for years and had never hired an African American at the level of job he was seeking.

He consistently ruled for the government in FOIA cases against government transparency. Blackwell v. FBI, 646 F.3d 37 (D.C. Cir. 2012), Hodge v. FBI, 703 F.3d 575 (D.C. Cir. 2013), Sack v. DOD, 823 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir. 2016)

Against free speech when it applies to workers: In Southern New England Telephone Company v. National Labor Relations Board, 793 F.3d 93 (D.C. Cir. 2015) Kavanaugh denied NLRB’s cross-application to enforce its order for the company to permit employees working in public to wear union shirts that said “Inmate” on the front and “Prisoner of (Company)” on the back.

He has shown a comparatively huge amount of concern for trivial or corporate rights, e.g., finding the CFPB unconstitutional, PHH Corporation v. CFPB, 839 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2016), or FAA regulations against flying model airplanes near D.C. monuments unlawful. Taylor v. Huerta, 856 F.3d 1089 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
Spendulus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2366
Merit: 1182



View Profile
October 03, 2018, 03:33:32 AM
 #237

....
Now, you bash this as fake news, but in reality, it's not. There's actual evidence from multiple independent sources that say this guy lied under oath.

Also, let's put something he said to the smell test;

"I'm was a football captain"

"I went to parties and got drunk in highschool"

"I never had sexual contact with anyone during highschool or for several years after highschool".

So, a partying, drinking, highschool football captain never got laid during highschool? I'd call absolute bollocks on that fact alone. Dude has no right to lie to the American public about this shit.....


Think about what you are doing. Nothing. You are not going to convince me and I am not going to convince you.

I know this is all all delay tactics, you appear to be brainwashed that it's somehow about actual abilities and suitability.

After these jerk off Demo senators are thru complaining and pulling every delaying and smear tactic they can, not a one of them is going to vote for Kav.

I have said what I think the outcome is going to be, that enough people see through the bullshit that Kav will be confirmed in short order. There will be a bunch of hysterical screaming Dems looking silly and stupid.

Just like they looked silly and stupid when the Russia Collusion lies collapsed.
BitPotus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 564


View Profile
October 03, 2018, 05:04:43 AM
Last edit: October 03, 2018, 05:19:06 AM by BitPotus
 #238

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/new-sworn-statement-alleges-ford-lied-under-oath-about-prepping-someone-for-a-polygraph

The Senate Judiciary Committee received a sworn statement from someone described as a longtime boyfriend of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser Christine Blasey Ford stating that she coached someone on taking a polygraph examination.

Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, requested any audio and video recording of Ford’s polygraph test from Ford's legal team in a letter Tuesday, since she used the examination results to support her allegations when testifying before the panel Friday.

“The full details of Dr. Ford’s polygraph are particularly important because the Senate Judiciary Committee has received a sworn statement from a longtime boyfriend of Dr. Ford’s stating that he personally witnessed Dr. Ford coaching a friend on polygraph examinations,” Grassley says in his request for the materials.

During her testimony before the committee last week, Ford said under oath that she had never given any tips or advice to anyone who was planning on taking or preparing for a polygraph test.

If Ford’s former boyfriend is telling the truth in his statement, which he submitted under penalty of felony, it could implicate her in perjury.

Grassley says it is not only concerning that Ford may have lied under oath, but also brings into question the reliability of the results of her polygraph.


https://twitter.com/ShannonBream/status/1047293294567456770

FFI2013
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 909
Merit: 507


View Profile
October 03, 2018, 11:22:50 AM
Merited by Flying Hellfish (1)
 #239

I'm not a democrat or republican I believe both side have great idea's and could accomplish so much if they worked together but it seems like Trump has brought a whole new hate to our country and I actually thought at one point he would be good and help but I now more than ever believe he ran for president and bullshitted people into believing he wanted to make america great again only to line is own pocket. Now as far as Brett Kavanaugh if anyone can actually say that hearing was fair why didn't the republicans let the female prosecutor question him because this guy is a liar every question that was asked he either lied or cried I worked my butt off lets face it he was a rich kid who's mommy and daddy cleaned up everything he did wrong
Moloch
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798
Merit: 719



View Profile
October 03, 2018, 11:40:59 AM
Merited by Flying Hellfish (1)
 #240

Brett lied about too many things... he has proven himself to be a compulsive liar... no wonder Trump loves him


Beach Week Ralph Club Biggest Contributor: "I'm known to have a weak stomach... catsup on spaghetti..."
Have You Boofed Yet?: "flatulence"
Renate Alumni Club: "she was just a friend"
Devil's Triangle:  "a drinking game"
FFFFFFFourth of July: "my friend stutters"


Sure man... sure...

Who lies about such silly nonsense anyway?  Why not just be honest that you liked to drink and have sex?
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!