Kavanaugh SCOTUS hearings

[*michaelsean*]

(09-06-2018, 09:10 AM)GMDino Wrote: They don't...but they complain about it.

Forexaple:  On Friday last week I think I read there were 400,000 documents that reps from the Bush admin were forming a group to cover over.

Four hours later they said they had reviewed them and released all but 10,000.

If I can find that story I'll link to it.

So who the hell goes through the 390,000 they release?  I'm guessing the people on the releasing side already have an idea of what they can release, but don't want to make it look easy, but then who goes through all the papers they release?

[GMDino]

(09-06-2018, 09:15 AM)michaelsean Wrote: So who the hell goes through the 390,000 they release?  I'm guessing the people on the releasing side already have an idea of what they can release, but don't want to make it look easy, but then who goes through all the papers they release?

Whoever was in that "group".  Lawyers?  Bush aligned lawyers that want to protect him?

I did not see the names of those who reviewed the papers.

[GMDino]

So Mr. Kavanaugh wasn't exactly, totally smooth yesterday when he had to answer a few questions:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/leahy-trips-kavanaugh-up-with-questions-about-allegedly-stolen-emails

Quote:Leahy Trips Kavanaugh Up With Questions About Allegedly Stolen Emails

At Wednesday’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) threw Brett Kavanaugh off his flow of so far providing steady and confident answers to senators’ questions with a line of inquiry about allegations that emails were stolen from Leahy’s office during the confirmation wars of the George W. Bush administration.

Kavanaugh at the time was involved in the judicial confirmation process for the White House, and on Wednesday Leahy zeroed in on testimony Kavanaugh later gave during his confirmation to a lower court judgeship.


Leahy presented Kavanaugh with claims the judge made during the mid-2000s confirmation hearings about never receiving the stolen emails. Kavanaugh said that his comments then were 100 percent accurate.


Leahy asked him specifically about information provided to him by Manny Miranda, then a Republican staffer on the Senate Judiciary Committee, about what senators were planning to ask Bush’s judicial nominees. Miranda, a Senate investigation revealed, had been covertly reading Democratic staffers emails and leaking them to right-wing outlets.


Kavanaugh explained that broadly, as part of the judicial confirmation process, the White House was in contact with the offices of senators on both sides of the aisle, and sought to be aware of what interested those senators regarding the nominees.


Leahy then offered Kavanaugh an email Miranda sent Kavanaugh in July 2002 indicating that Leahy’s office was interested in a nominee’s financial ties to certain groups. Leahy asked Kavanaugh if he was aware that that information was coming from emails stolen from Leahy.

Kavanaugh said that the information came from the common practice of hearing about senators’ interest through discussions on the Hill.


Leahy didn’t lay off, and badgered Kavanaugh about the specifics of the information offered by Miranda, while claiming that it came from private emails sent to Leahy the night before.



Kavanaugh appeared confused and asked Leahy to point him to relevant portions of the Miranda email in front of him. Leahy appeared to allude to other emails that might have shown Miranda providing stolen information to Kavanaugh.


Kavanugh continued to waffle around Leahy’s questions, which included inquiries about whether he met Miranda in locations other than the White House or the Capitol.


Leahy then asked Kavanaugh if he would be surprised if there was an email showing that he got information from somebody’s spying. Kavanaugh asked if such an email exists, prompting Leahy to coyly allude to the thousands of Kavanaugh documents that have been deemed committee confidential — meaning they can’t be shared publicly.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley jumped in at this point, his voice raised, to defend his handling of the document production, and had a back-and-forth with Leahy about the getting permission to use committee confidential materials during the hearings.


At one point, Leahy claimed that there were confidential documents related to this line of inquiry and that he hoped to make them public for the next round of questioning.


Through it all, Kavanaugh insisted that he did not mislead the committee in his previous testimony, despite Leahy’s insinuations.


“That testimony up there is true — 100 percent,” Kavanaugh said.

Yeah...those unreleased documents are hiding something.

Continuing...

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/05/kavanaugh-mueller-probe-hearings-809115

Quote:Kavanaugh stumbles when grilled on whether he discussed Mueller probe


Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Nearly 12 hours into Brett Kavanaugh’s Senate confirmation hearing, Kamala Harris opened with a tantalizing query: Has the Supreme Court nominee ever discussed Robert Mueller’s probe with a lawyer at Kasowitz Benson & Torres, President Donald Trump’s longtime law firm?


“Be sure about your answer, sir,” Harris asked Kavanaugh. Trump’s high court pick appeared nonplussed, responding that “I’m not sure I know everyone who works at that law firm,” but the California Democrat – a veteran prosecutor known for her tenacious questioning and high on her party’s 2020 presidential short lists — would not let up.

“How can you not remember whether you’ve had a conversation about Robert Mueller or his investigation with anyone at that law firm?” Harris asked, suggesting that Kavanaugh was “thinking of someone and you don’t want to tell us.”


The moment was striking, one of the Democratic Party’s newest leading lights taking on a well-respected Trump nominee with roots in hard-knuckle GOP politics. But Harris moved on from the question within minutes, turning what seemed like a chance to get Kavanaugh on the ropes into a mystery — and one with a sizable downside risk.


Harris offered no further context for her line of questioning with Kavanaugh, which suggested that he may have discussed an investigation affecting Trump with Trump-connected lawyers but lacked any solid proof.

The only explanation for the back-and-forth came from a Democratic aide speaking on condition of anonymity, who said Wednesday night that some in the party "have reason to believe that a conversation happened and are continuing to pursue it."


If tangible evidence of that conversation doesn’t emerge, Harris and fellow Democrats are likely to face serious questions of their own from the GOP about whether their attempt to pin down Kavanaugh was little more than a game of gotcha.

One Republican, Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, leapt to the judge’s defense after Harris began her opaque but dogged questions, noting that the vast number of lawyers he’d normally be interacting with made the question difficult to answer.


Marc Kasowitz, founder of the Kasowitz firm, briefly represented Trump in the Mueller investigation last year before bowing out and has continued to represent the president in a defamation lawsuit filed against him by former “Apprentice” contestant Summer Zervos. The firm has represented Trump in multiple other cases over the past decade.


And it’s a vast firm, with more than 250 lawyers on staff whom Harris may have been referring to. More clues may emerge as soon as next week, with the California Democrat saying during the hearing that she would follow up on the matter in the form of written questions for Kavanaugh.


Those questions are due to the committee on Monday.

The video of that one is better.  He heard the names Mueller and Trump in the same sentence and his talky box stopped working while his thinking cap started smoking looking for a legalese answer to avoid it.

[*michaelsean*]

(09-06-2018, 09:19 AM)GMDino Wrote: Whoever was in that "group".  Lawyers?  Bush aligned lawyers that want to protect him?

I did not see the names of those who reviewed the papers.

No after they are released to the senators.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-06-2018, 09:43 AM)GMDino Wrote: The video of that one is better.  He heard the names Mueller and Trump in the same sentence and his talky box stopped working while his thinking cap started smoking looking for a legalese answer to avoid it.

Your disdain for people with different opinions than you is really quite ugly.

[GMDino]

(09-06-2018, 11:26 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Your disdain for people with different opinions than you is really quite ugly.

Personal slurs aside your interpretation of my sharing stories is misguided.  'Cause boy you ain't see me get ugly. That would get me banned for life around here. 

Do you have something to dispute it or do you just want to tie up the thread with more of you telling me how wrong I am? Again?

[GMDino]

(09-06-2018, 11:05 AM)michaelsean Wrote: No after they are released to the senators.  

Oh! I assume that is mostly their staff.  They probably "flag" things they think the senator needs to look at.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-06-2018, 11:32 AM)GMDino Wrote: Personal slurs aside your interpretation of my sharing stories is misguided.  'Cause boy you ain't see me get ugly. That would get me banned for life around here. 

Do you have something to dispute it or do you just want to tie up the thread with more of you telling me how wrong I am? Again?

No, just exposing your disdain for people with different opinions from you, it's evident in the words you use and the way you phrase things.  I'm sure you walk around thinking your a tolerant person too.  I am very concerned that you might get "ugly" one day.  I'll live in mortal fear of such a day from this point forward.

[GMDino]

(09-06-2018, 11:41 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, just exposing your disdain for people with different opinions from you, it's evident in the words you use and the way you phrase things. 

From the post you quoted:

(09-06-2018, 09:43 AM)GMDino Wrote: So Mr. Kavanaugh wasn't exactly, totally smooth yesterday when he had to answer a few questions:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/leahy-trips-kavanaugh-up-with-questions-about-allegedly-stolen-emails

Yeah...those unreleased documents are hiding something.

Continuing...

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/05/kavanaugh-mueller-probe-hearings-809115

The video of that one is better.  He heard the names Mueller and Trump in the same sentence and his talky box stopped working while his thinking cap started smoking looking for a legalese answer to avoid it.

Whoo! "Disdain"!

(09-06-2018, 11:41 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm sure you walk around thinking your a tolerant person too.

 

I think I'm human and I try to be tolerant. I also point out when people do bad things and occasionally comment on things I think look shady or might need brought to public attention.

For the 124137581375691th time: You have no idea about me son. None. Other than this board.

(09-06-2018, 11:41 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I am very concerned that you might get "ugly" one day.  I'll live in mortal fear of such a day from this point forward.

It won't happen. I can't use the colorful language that I think occasionally when posting.

I don't intend to make anyone afraid...more question their definition of "ugly" based on that post.

I mean if you want to know more about me personally I can have quite the temper. I have been known to yell on occasion. Curse too. I never get physically violent though. That's the weak man's way of handling things.

Still not sure if you are trying to say the post about Kavanaugh was wrong or if you just don't like me saying it?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-06-2018, 11:54 AM)GMDino Wrote: From the post you quoted:


Whoo!  "Disdain"!

 

I think I'm human and I try to be tolerant.  I also point out when people do bad things and occasionally comment on things I think look shady or might need brought to public attention.

For the 124137581375691th time:  You have no idea about me son.  None.  Other than this board.


It won't happen.  I can't use the colorful language that I think occasionally when posting.  

I don't intend to make anyone afraid...more question their definition of "ugly" based on that post.  

I mean if you want to know more about me personally I can have quite the temper.  I have been known to yell on occasion.  Curse too.  I never get physically violent though.  That's the weak man's way of handling things.

Still not sure if you are trying to say the post about Kavanaugh was wrong or if you just don't like me saying it?

Dude, here's how you described Kavanaugh;

Quote:He heard the names Mueller and Trump in the same sentence and his talky box stopped working while his thinking cap started smoking looking for a legalese answer to avoid it.

Disdain drips from this statement.  You don't see it, fine.  I'm still going to point it out.

[GMDino]

(09-06-2018, 12:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dude, here's how you described Kavanaugh;



Disdain drips from this statement.  You don't see it, fine.  I'm still going to point it out.

Watch the video.  He got caught off guard and couldn't use one of his pat, prepared answers so I wrote it out in a funny way.

Jebus some of you fit perfectly into my quote about telling everyone else to have a sense of humor until something THEY think is serious gets joked about.

Laugh a little son!  

[GMDino]

Kavanaugh has said TWICE, under oath, that he first learned about the warrantless surveillance program when the NYT reported it in 2005.

Here is an email about the program that he wrote in 2001 to John Yoo, the legal architect of the program https://t.co/wSrtHIO3ks

— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) September 6, 2018

[BmorePat87]

Cory Booker has violated Senate rules by releasing an email from Kavanaugh that was deemed "committee confidential". The email itself is in regards to racial profiling, shedding some light on his views. Booker took issue with the fact that the shielding of this document as "committee confidential" on the grounds of national security was a partisan move to either slow the process or hide some of his views that would be considered controversial and has nothing to do with national security. The documents were marked as confidential by a Bush lawyer who previously worked under Kavanaugh.

Senator Mazie Hirono (D- HA) followed suit and released an email also marked as confidential in which Kavanaugh debates whether native Hawaiians should receive the same protections as Native American tribes.

Senate Democrats are frustrated at the massive amount of documents being shielded from both them and the public by the Trump administration and former Kavanaugh deputies working as Bush lawyers. They can request some of these be released, but ultimately it's a process whose timing and speed will depend on those who are preventing them from seeing them in the first place.

Booker had tried to bring up a detail in the email chain during his questioning last night but was told he could not as he had to be able to present the document in question to Kavanaugh, which he couldn't because of its confidentiality. From what I have read, it may have actually been cleared after he requested it cleared last night, but it still presents a question as to why something not relevant to national security is having a roadblock put in front of it.

[Yojimbo]

(09-06-2018, 01:17 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Kavanaugh has said TWICE, under oath, that he first learned about the warrantless surveillance program when the NYT reported it in 2005.

Here is an email about the program that he wrote in 2001 to John Yoo, the legal architect of the program https://t.co/wSrtHIO3ks

— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) September 6, 2018

Being honest and not breaking the law are not important qualities for a judge.

[*bfine32*]

(09-06-2018, 02:33 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Cory Booker has violated Senate rules by releasing an email from Kavanaugh that was deemed "committee confidential". The email itself is in regards to racial profiling, shedding some light on his views. Booker took issue with the fact that the shielding of this document as "committee confidential" on the grounds of national security was a partisan move to either slow the process or hide some of his views that would be considered controversial and has nothing to do with national security. The documents were marked as confidential by a Bush lawyer who previously worked under Kavanaugh.

Senator Mazie Hirono (D- HA) followed suit and released an email also marked as confidential in which Kavanaugh debates whether native Hawaiians should receive the same protections as Native American tribes.

Senate Democrats are frustrated at the massive amount of documents being shielded from both them and the public by the Trump administration and former Kavanaugh deputies working as Bush lawyers. They can request some of these be released, but ultimately it's a process whose timing and speed will depend on those who are preventing them from seeing them in the first place.

Booker had tried to bring up a detail in the email chain during his questioning last night but was told he could not as he had to be able to present the document in question to Kavanaugh, which he couldn't because of its confidentiality. From what I have read, it may have actually been cleared after he requested it cleared last night, but it still presents a question as to why something not relevant to national security is having a roadblock put in front of it.

It also begs the question: Who are Corey Booker and Mazie Hirono to violate Senate rules? Or is OK to violate the rules if we agree with the reason?

As I said during Booker's opening. He has just announced his 2020 candidacy.

[Benton]

(09-06-2018, 03:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It also begs the question: Who are Corey Booker and Mazie Hirono to violate Senate rules? Or is OK to violate the rules if we agree with the reason?

Senators. It wouldn't make a ton of sense for a construction worker from Ohio to break Senate rules, as he largely can't. Or isn't bound with them. Or tasked with enforcing them. Or tasked with changing them.

In this case, Booker's rule breaking points out the larger problem that dates back through several decades and multiple administrations: the government is lying to people. I haven't had a chance to see exactly what was released, but from the description it's trivial information on racial profiling. Possibly something irrelevant to the nomination. And it's something likely to get cherry picked to make either him or the Bush administration look bad, but it doesn't sound like anything that should be shielded for security purposes.

[*bfine32*]

(09-06-2018, 03:46 PM)Benton Wrote: Senators. It wouldn't make a ton of sense for a construction worker from Ohio to break Senate rules, as he largely can't. Or isn't bound with them. Or tasked with enforcing them. Or tasked with changing them.

In this case, Booker's rule breaking points out the larger problem that dates back through several decades and multiple administrations: the government is lying to people. I haven't had a chance to see exactly what was released, but from the description it's trivial information on racial profiling. Possibly something irrelevant to the nomination. And it's something likely to get cherry picked to make either him or the Bush administration look bad, but it doesn't sound like anything that should be shielded for security purposes.

So you have no problem with any Senator releasing confidential documents they have been instructed not to release if he/she deems them OK to release?

Gotta say, I can't roll with that regardless the content; however, I have admitted numerous times that we don't always need to see behind the curtain

[Yojimbo]

(09-06-2018, 03:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So you have no problem with any Senator releasing confidential documents they have been instructed not to release if he/she deems them OK to release?

Gotta say, I can't roll with that regardless the content; however, I have admitted numerous times that we don't always need to see behind the curtain

I’m ok with it, if it’s important information that citizens should know, that the government is hiding for political reasons. Remember it’s a govt of the PEOPLE, FOR the PEOPLE, not for politicians/political parties.

[*bfine32*]

(09-06-2018, 03:58 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: I’m ok with it, if it’s important information that citizens should know, that the government is hiding for political reasons.

And you're Ok with anyone deciding what the citizen should know as long as he/she thinks they should know it?

Personally, I'd prefer some standardized procedure; that requires vetting.

[Yojimbo]

(09-06-2018, 04:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And you're Ok with anyone deciding what the citizen should know as long as he/she thinks they should know it?

Personally, I'd prefer some standardized procedure; that requires vetting.

Not “anyone” but elected officials that serve their constituents, I’m okay with them making that decision. Then their constituents get to decide, in the next election, if it was the right thing to do.