456
all 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Myxomatosis@lemmy.world 72 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Boofin’ Brett is an overly-emotional drunk whose hysterics and lack of self-control during his nomination hearings should have ended his career. Who is the mysterious benefactor who paid off his debts? He must have a sugar daddy like Clarence does. Maybe we’ll find out….during Beach Week.

[-] z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml 59 points 1 month ago

Let's not mince words. Brett Kavanaugh is first and foremost, before anything else, a Rapist, who happens to be a supreme court justice. Not the other way around.

[-] TexasDrunk@lemmy.world 20 points 1 month ago

is an overly-emotional drunk whose hysterics and lack of self-control during his

You leave me out of this!

nomination hearings

Oh, carry on then. That motherfucker is giving the rest of us overly emotional drunks a bad name.

[-] barsquid@lemmy.world 70 points 1 month ago

This was public knowledge ever since the parties responsible conducted an investigation that lasted one business week and interviewed none of the witnesses.

[-] uberdroog@lemmy.world 31 points 1 month ago

Right. It's being reported now like this is NEW. It was widely reported at the time.

[-] ceenote@lemmy.world 53 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Everyone knew this at the time.

It's telling that every Trump appointed justice has a degree of illegitimacy around them. Gorsuch's seat should have been filled by Obama, Kavanaugh got deliberately under-vetted, and Coney-Barrett's seat should have been filled by Biden.

[-] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 28 points 1 month ago

Everyone should keep being reminded of this every time Brett makes a ruling. America's judicial system is illegitimate until he's dealt with.

[-] Dlayknee@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

How would a sham Supreme Court judge be removed? I know there was talk of impeaching them but... is that actually a thing?

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago

In a functioning government, yes. In a government hamstrung by idiot racist fascists, no.

[-] NABDad@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

It's actually a thing, but it would require a degree of unity the country isn't capable of.

[-] Lennny@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago
[-] SayJess@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 month ago

Hey now, don’t give me hope.

[-] BertramDitore@lemm.ee 23 points 1 month ago

To all the folks saying we already knew about this, yes we mostly did from some high quality journalism, but the details were not actually confirmed. Senator Whitehouse’s new report is still really important. From another one of my comments on an earlier post:

Ehh it was reported on, but we didn’t know it for sure, nor did we have specifics. There’s a difference between good reporting in a credible newspaper and an investigation led by a Senator on the Judiciary Committee. I think we’re just used to relying on good journalism since there has been a distinct lack of judicial oversight in Congress. But reports like this are based on totally different access and legal mechanisms that the press isn’t privy to (on the record, at least).

Relevant bits:

Since Kavanaugh’s confirmation, Whitehouse and Senate Democrats have tried to find out just how thoroughly the FBI investigated the allegations. In numerous hearings and letters, they asked FBI Director Christopher Wray for details and documentation but got nothing back until Trump was out of office, according to the report.

and

“The Congressional report published today confirms what we long suspected,” said Ford’s attorneys in a statement. “The FBI supplemental investigation of then-nominee Brett Kavanaugh was, in fact, a sham effort directed by the Trump White House to silence brave victims and other witnesses who came forward and to hide the truth.”

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago

Yeah, no kidding. It's fairly obvious that Kegstand is a posterboy for Republican privilege.

[-] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago

I mean it's I guess nice that we at least have confirmation that the FBI under Trump was corrupt but what I don't see is that these people, from the ground on up, being fired.

I mean the damage is fucking done thanks to these corrupt assholes, I want my pound of flesh from these corrupt assholes and they should actually investigate and impeach this drunkard out of the Supreme Court.

[-] fosho@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

what illiterate demon possessed you to write "it's I guess nice" instead of "I guess it's nice" ?

[-] jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

The supreme court will continue to be illegitimate as long as he's in it.

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Sadly, it's been tainted by the likes of Coke can Clarence for a very long time. If Coke can Clarence is any indication, Kegstand will be around to taint the court for at least as long as that....

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago
[-] HawlSera@lemm.ee 4 points 1 month ago

This is the only man to cry and start ranting about his love of beer, in the interview, and still get the job.

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

The hysterics of other qons like Lindsey was so over the top, too. Imagine, thinking that someone deserves the job and that hard questions in an interview process result in snowflakes melting down on behalf of the job candidate like these qons did....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTBxPPx62s4

[-] basmati@lemmus.org 5 points 1 month ago

The FBI? Corrupt? The institution specifically made to investigate threats to power in a partisan manner did exactly that?

How shocking.

[-] HawlSera@lemm.ee 3 points 1 month ago

Didn't everyone know this at the time?

[-] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -5 points 1 month ago

The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for The Guardian:

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/10/brett-kavanaugh-fbi-donald-trump-investigation-sham
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2024
456 points (99.1% liked)

politics

19173 readers
1910 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS