U.S. Politics

[sne]

Kanye West having one of his trademark meltdowns during the same SNL episode

edit: meltdown might be a too strong a word. He's just Kanye being Kanye, and the guy likes Trump.

Trump has tweeted that even thou he didn't watch Snl he heard that Kanye was great.

Kanye's now made a second bizarre statement about abolishing the 13th amendment, as in making slavery legal again.

 

Edited September 30, 2018 by sne

[Davkaus]

Goes on an infamous rant about Dubya "not caring about black people". Supports Trump. Lol. the guy's a **** imbecile.

[villakram]

Those pesky North Montenegrans not voting to join the NATO military empire... damn Russians at it once again!

[chrisp65]

do you mean Macedonia?

Montenegro is already a member of NATO 

[Davkaus]

9 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

do you mean Macedonia?

Montenegro is already a member of NATO 

So you're agreeing that Montenegro hasn't voted in favour of joining the NATO military empire today? Checkmate.

[OutByEaster?]

On 30/09/2018 at 16:21, sne said:

Kanye's now made a second bizarre statement about abolishing the 13th amendment, as in making slavery legal again.

I don't think he's suggesting repealing the 13th amendment, he's talking about changes to the way US prisons are allowed to use prisoners for work - the inference being that slavery never ended, it's just slightly disguised. In fairness, that's an opinion a lot of people have about the for-profit US penal system. I'm not aware it's something that Mr Trump has any interest in changing though.

 

[sne]

Just now, OutByEaster? said:

I don't think he's suggesting repealing the 13th amendment, he's talking about changes to the way US prisons are allowed to use prisoners for work - the inference being that slavery never ended, it's just slightly disguised. In fairness, that's an opinion a lot of people have about the for-profit US penal system. I'm not aware it's something that Mr Trump has any interest in changing though.

 

Yeah he's come out with 2 explanatory tweets after this to explain his original one.

He's also about to drop a new album so...

[peterms]

9 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

the way US prisons are allowed to use prisoners for work - the inference being that slavery never ended, it's just slightly disguised. In fairness, that's an opinion a lot of people have about the for-profit US penal system.

Pretty hard to argue against, I'd have thought.

[TheAuthority]

21 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

I don't think he's suggesting repealing the 13th amendment, he's talking about changes to the way US prisons are allowed to use prisoners for work - the inference being that slavery never ended, it's just slightly disguised. In fairness, that's an opinion a lot of people have about the for-profit US penal system. I'm not aware it's something that Mr Trump has any interest in changing though.

 

 

[villakram]

2 hours ago, Davkaus said:

So you're agreeing that Montenegro hasn't voted in favour of joining the NATO military empire today? Checkmate.

peeing on a dead man... so brave 

Those damn Balkans.. always causing problems 

[StefanAVFC]

I know JO isn't unbiased but this is essential viewing. Even if he's not guilty of the assault, he doesn't have the character and he clearly committed perjury. 

I think he's 100% guilty from his behaviour FWIW. Even if I didn't watch Ford's testimony.

[HanoiVillan]

It's a long read, but for anyone interested in going into the details of each of Kavanaugh's untruths, this piece appears to be definitive. Extract:

'What does it say about this country that this is the state of our discourse? That Kavanaugh even stands any chance of being made one of the most powerful figures in the American government, with control over life and liberty? That a man like this is even a judge? He went before the United States Senate and showed total contempt for his vow to tell the truth. He attempted to portray a highly esteemed doctor as a crazy person, by  consistently misrepresenting the evidence. He treated the public like we were idiots, like we wouldn’t notice as he pretended he was ralphing during Beach Week from too many jalapeños, as he feigned ignorance about sex slang, as he misread his own meticulously-kept 1982 summer calendar, as he replied to questions about his drinking habits by talking about church, as he suggested there are no alcoholics at Yale, as he denied knowing who “Bart O’Kavanaugh” could possibly be based on, as he declared things refuted that weren’t actually refuted, as he claimed witnesses said things they didn’t say, as he failed to explain why nearly a dozen Yale classmates said he drank heavily, as he invented an imaginary drinking game to avoid admitting he had the mind of a sports jock in high school, as he said Ford had only accused him last week, as he responded to his roommate’s eyewitness statement with an incoherent story about furniture, as he pretended Bethesda wasn’t five miles wide, as he insisted Renate should be flattered by the ditty about how easy she was, as he declared that distinguished federal judges don’t commit sexual misconduct even though he had clerked for exactly such a judge.

And what does it say about us, and our political system, that he might well get away with it?'

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying

Linked within the piece is another by the same author, which examines his jurisprudence, which also seems like flashback-to-the-Bush-era nastiness, including this genuine judgement:

'[. . .] I’d invite you to take a look at Saleh v. Titan Corp, in which Iraqis who had been detained at Abu Ghraib tried to sue American private contractors who, the Iraqis alleged, had tortured them. The majority opinion, which Kavanaugh joined, dismissed the Iraqis’ claims. Tellingly, the majority opinion also went out of its way to minimize what happened to the Iraqis, writing that  “while the terms ‘torture’ and ‘war crimes’ are mentioned throughout plaintiffs’ appellate briefs and were used sporadically at oral argument, the factual allegations in the plaintiffs’ briefs are in virtually all instances limited to claims of ‘abuse’ or ‘harm,’” and there was “only one specified instance of activity that would arguably fit the definition of torture (or possibly war crimes) is alleged.” The court’s remarks on the merits were gratuitous—it was supposed to decide whether the ex-detainees could sue the contractor, not whether the ex-detainees could prove their claims. But the court downplayed the seriousness of what was alleged, and even cast doubt on whether the plaintiffs were telling the truth, so that it wouldn’t seem so outrageous to rule that contractors wouldn’t be liable for it.

In a scathing dissent, Merrick Garland took the majority to task, detailing all of the facts alleged in the case that the majority somehow forgot to mention:

“The plaintiffs in these cases allege that they were beaten, electrocuted, raped, subjected to attacks by dogs, and otherwise abused by private contractors working as interpreters and interrogators at Abu Ghraib prison. The plaintiffs contend that CACI and Titan employees subjected them to the following acts, among many others: “Torturing Plaintiff Ibrahim’s husband by repeatedly inflicting blows and other injuries to his head and body, thereby causing extreme physical and mental pain and suffering and, ultimately, his death. Torturing Plaintiff Aboud by beating him with fists and sticks, urinating on him. and threatening to attack him with dogs. Torturing Plaintiff Hadod by beating him with fists and striking his head against a wall and forcing him to watch his elderly father being hung up and then beaten. Torturing Plaintiff Al Jumali’s husband by beating him, gouging out one of his eyes, electrocuting him, breaking one of his legs, and spearing him, thereby causing his death. Roping Plaintiff Saleh and 12 other naked prisoners together by their genitals and then pushing one of the male detainees to the ground, causing the others to suffer extreme physical, mental and emotional distress repeatedly shocking Plaintiff Saleh with an electric stick and beating him with a cable; and tying his hands above his head and sodomizing him. Stripping Plaintiff Al-Nidawi, tying his hands behind his back and releasing dogs to attack his private parts. Forcing Plaintiff Haj Ali to stand on a box, with electrical wires attached to his wrists and shocking him with intense pulses of electricity.” [gigantic pile of internal quotes, ellipsis, and brackets omitted]

'I quote this at length to give the context for the opinion’s comment that there was only “one instance” that would “arguably” fit the definition of torture. This is what Kavanaugh said contractors could never be held liable for doing, even if it was fully provable in court. And, as Garland pointed out in dissent, this was despite the fact that the Federal Tort Claims Act explicitly states that contractors do not have the kind of exemption from liability that the U.S. government has.'

Oh, and another one:

'This wasn’t the only case in which Kavanaugh shielded a powerful corporation from being held liable for acts it (allegedly!) committed against poor foreigners. In Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp., the D.C. circuit court dealt with a lawsuit filed by a group of Indonesian villagers against Exxon. The villagers “allege[d] that Exxon’s security forces committed murder, torture, sexual assault, battery, false imprisonment, and other torts.” Exxon attempted to have the suit dismissed. The court, 2-1, found that Exxon hadn’t shown that the suit should be dismissed, and allowed it to proceed.

Kavanaugh, you won’t be surprised to hear, dissented. The “plaintiffs claim they were injured in Indonesia by members of the Indonesian military who provide security for Exxon in Indonesia,” he wrote, but the U.S. government “has stated that the lawsuit will adversely affect the foreign policy interests of the United States… in the ongoing war against al Qaeda.” The State Department said the case could have an adverse impact on “interests related directly to the on-going struggle against international terrorism,” and since “the federal courts give deference to reasonable explanations by the Executive Branch that a civil lawsuit would adversely affect the foreign relations of the United States,” the villagers shouldn’t be allowed to sue.

So, George W. Bush’s State Department said that if the villagers sued Exxon, it would harm the fight against Al-Qaeda and undermine the War On Terror. Kavanaugh accepted this as “reasonable.” Kavanaugh does not apply the slightest bit of skepticism, or try to figure out whether there is a way to adjudicate the claims without playing into the hands of Osama bin Laden. Instead, as soon as the government asked for Exxon to be let off the hook, he would have cast the villagers out of court.'

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/08/why-everyone-should-oppose-brett-kavanaughs-confirmation

Would be great if people could remember that this is actually what the Dubya years were like, now he's getting all rehabilitated and allowed back into polite society and shit. 

 

[HanoiVillan]

 

[peterms]

 

[villakram]

16 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

It's a long read, but for anyone interested in going into the details of each of Kavanaugh's untruths, this piece appears to be definitive. Extract:

'What does it say about this country that this is the state of our discourse? That Kavanaugh even stands any chance of being made one of the most powerful figures in the American government, with control over life and liberty? That a man like this is even a judge? He went before the United States Senate and showed total contempt for his vow to tell the truth. He attempted to portray a highly esteemed doctor as a crazy person, by  consistently misrepresenting the evidence. He treated the public like we were idiots, like we wouldn’t notice as he pretended he was ralphing during Beach Week from too many jalapeños, as he feigned ignorance about sex slang, as he misread his own meticulously-kept 1982 summer calendar, as he replied to questions about his drinking habits by talking about church, as he suggested there are no alcoholics at Yale, as he denied knowing who “Bart O’Kavanaugh” could possibly be based on, as he declared things refuted that weren’t actually refuted, as he claimed witnesses said things they didn’t say, as he failed to explain why nearly a dozen Yale classmates said he drank heavily, as he invented an imaginary drinking game to avoid admitting he had the mind of a sports jock in high school, as he said Ford had only accused him last week, as he responded to his roommate’s eyewitness statement with an incoherent story about furniture, as he pretended Bethesda wasn’t five miles wide, as he insisted Renate should be flattered by the ditty about how easy she was, as he declared that distinguished federal judges don’t commit sexual misconduct even though he had clerked for exactly such a judge.

And what does it say about us, and our political system, that he might well get away with it?'

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying

Linked within the piece is another by the same author, which examines his jurisprudence, which also seems like flashback-to-the-Bush-era nastiness, including this genuine judgement:

'[. . .] I’d invite you to take a look at Saleh v. Titan Corp, in which Iraqis who had been detained at Abu Ghraib tried to sue American private contractors who, the Iraqis alleged, had tortured them. The majority opinion, which Kavanaugh joined, dismissed the Iraqis’ claims. Tellingly, the majority opinion also went out of its way to minimize what happened to the Iraqis, writing that  “while the terms ‘torture’ and ‘war crimes’ are mentioned throughout plaintiffs’ appellate briefs and were used sporadically at oral argument, the factual allegations in the plaintiffs’ briefs are in virtually all instances limited to claims of ‘abuse’ or ‘harm,’” and there was “only one specified instance of activity that would arguably fit the definition of torture (or possibly war crimes) is alleged.” The court’s remarks on the merits were gratuitous—it was supposed to decide whether the ex-detainees could sue the contractor, not whether the ex-detainees could prove their claims. But the court downplayed the seriousness of what was alleged, and even cast doubt on whether the plaintiffs were telling the truth, so that it wouldn’t seem so outrageous to rule that contractors wouldn’t be liable for it.

In a scathing dissent, Merrick Garland took the majority to task, detailing all of the facts alleged in the case that the majority somehow forgot to mention:

“The plaintiffs in these cases allege that they were beaten, electrocuted, raped, subjected to attacks by dogs, and otherwise abused by private contractors working as interpreters and interrogators at Abu Ghraib prison. The plaintiffs contend that CACI and Titan employees subjected them to the following acts, among many others: “Torturing Plaintiff Ibrahim’s husband by repeatedly inflicting blows and other injuries to his head and body, thereby causing extreme physical and mental pain and suffering and, ultimately, his death. Torturing Plaintiff Aboud by beating him with fists and sticks, urinating on him. and threatening to attack him with dogs. Torturing Plaintiff Hadod by beating him with fists and striking his head against a wall and forcing him to watch his elderly father being hung up and then beaten. Torturing Plaintiff Al Jumali’s husband by beating him, gouging out one of his eyes, electrocuting him, breaking one of his legs, and spearing him, thereby causing his death. Roping Plaintiff Saleh and 12 other naked prisoners together by their genitals and then pushing one of the male detainees to the ground, causing the others to suffer extreme physical, mental and emotional distress repeatedly shocking Plaintiff Saleh with an electric stick and beating him with a cable; and tying his hands above his head and sodomizing him. Stripping Plaintiff Al-Nidawi, tying his hands behind his back and releasing dogs to attack his private parts. Forcing Plaintiff Haj Ali to stand on a box, with electrical wires attached to his wrists and shocking him with intense pulses of electricity.” [gigantic pile of internal quotes, ellipsis, and brackets omitted]

'I quote this at length to give the context for the opinion’s comment that there was only “one instance” that would “arguably” fit the definition of torture. This is what Kavanaugh said contractors could never be held liable for doing, even if it was fully provable in court. And, as Garland pointed out in dissent, this was despite the fact that the Federal Tort Claims Act explicitly states that contractors do not have the kind of exemption from liability that the U.S. government has.'

Oh, and another one:

'This wasn’t the only case in which Kavanaugh shielded a powerful corporation from being held liable for acts it (allegedly!) committed against poor foreigners. In Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp., the D.C. circuit court dealt with a lawsuit filed by a group of Indonesian villagers against Exxon. The villagers “allege[d] that Exxon’s security forces committed murder, torture, sexual assault, battery, false imprisonment, and other torts.” Exxon attempted to have the suit dismissed. The court, 2-1, found that Exxon hadn’t shown that the suit should be dismissed, and allowed it to proceed.

Kavanaugh, you won’t be surprised to hear, dissented. The “plaintiffs claim they were injured in Indonesia by members of the Indonesian military who provide security for Exxon in Indonesia,” he wrote, but the U.S. government “has stated that the lawsuit will adversely affect the foreign policy interests of the United States… in the ongoing war against al Qaeda.” The State Department said the case could have an adverse impact on “interests related directly to the on-going struggle against international terrorism,” and since “the federal courts give deference to reasonable explanations by the Executive Branch that a civil lawsuit would adversely affect the foreign relations of the United States,” the villagers shouldn’t be allowed to sue.

So, George W. Bush’s State Department said that if the villagers sued Exxon, it would harm the fight against Al-Qaeda and undermine the War On Terror. Kavanaugh accepted this as “reasonable.” Kavanaugh does not apply the slightest bit of skepticism, or try to figure out whether there is a way to adjudicate the claims without playing into the hands of Osama bin Laden. Instead, as soon as the government asked for Exxon to be let off the hook, he would have cast the villagers out of court.'

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/08/why-everyone-should-oppose-brett-kavanaughs-confirmation

Would be great if people could remember that this is actually what the Dubya years were like, now he's getting all rehabilitated and allowed back into polite society and shit. 

 

I wish more would be made of information like that. The issue is that actual problems don't matter, hence chasing the truth/lie route so hard. So bloody depressing.

[sne]

Will be interesting to see how Trump reacts to the NY Times piece on him.

Not sure if anything is criminal with the tax planning and while president he can't be charged anyway, but it kinda pokes a hole in his self made story.

Massive article so make sure to put the kettle on: 

Quote

The president has long sold himself as a self-made billionaire, but a Times investigation found that he received at least $413 million in today’s dollars from his father’s real estate empire, much of it through tax dodges in the 1990s.

By DAVID BARSTOW, SUSANNE CRAIG and RUSS BUETTNER

President Trump participated in dubious tax schemes during the 1990s, including instances of outright fraud, that greatly increased the fortune he received from his parents, an investigation by The New York Times has found.

Mr. Trump won the presidency proclaiming himself a self-made billionaire, and he has long insisted that his father, the legendary New York City builder Fred C. Trump, provided almost no financial help.

But The Times’s investigation, based on a vast trove of confidential tax returns and financial records, reveals that Mr. Trump received the equivalent today of at least $413 million from his father’s real estate empire, starting when he was a toddler and continuing to this day.

Much of this money came to Mr. Trump because he helped his parents dodge taxes. He and his siblings set up a sham corporation to disguise millions of dollars in gifts from their parents, records and interviews show. Records indicate that Mr. Trump helped his father take improper tax deductions worth millions more. He also helped formulate a strategy to undervalue his parents’ real estate holdings by hundreds of millions of dollars on tax returns, sharply reducing the tax bill when those properties were transferred to him and his siblings.

These maneuvers met with little resistance from the Internal Revenue Service, The Times found. The president’s parents, Fred and Mary Trump, transferred well over $1 billion in wealth to their children, which could have produced a tax bill of at least $550 million under the 55 percent tax rate then imposed on gifts and inheritances.

The Trumps paid a total of $52.2 million, or about 5 percent, tax records show...

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-tax-schemes-fred-trump.html

[StefanAVFC]

He reacted by making fun of Professor Ford...

Scum.

[LakotaDakota]

Seems someone is lying, doubt we will ever really know the full truth but that is the same in pretty much all of the metoo/yewtree etc cases where everyone is guilty until proven otherwise.

 

FBI report on Kavanaugh could be finished tomorrow

'The Story' exclusive: Woman who worked on Kavanaugh investigations provides insight into the background checks.

In a written declaration released Tuesday and obtained by Fox News, an ex-boyfriend of Christine Blasey Ford, the California professor accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, directly contradicts her testimony under oath last week that she had never helped anyone prepare for a polygraph examination.

The former boyfriend, whose name was redacted in the declaration, also said Ford neither mentioned Kavanaugh nor mentioned she was a victim of sexual misconduct during the time they were dating from about 1992 to 1998. He said he saw Ford going to great lengths to help a woman he believed was her "life-long best friend" prepare for a potential polygraph test. He added that the woman had been interviewing for jobs with the FBI and U.S. Attorney's office.

He further claimed that Ford never voiced any fear of flying (even while aboard a propeller plane) and seemingly had no problem living in a "very small," 500 sq. ft. apartment with one door -- apparently contradicting her claims that she could not testify promptly in D.C. because she felt uncomfortable traveling on planes, as well as her suggestion that her memories of Kavanuagh's alleged assault prompted her to feel unsafe living in a closed space or one without a second front door.

Ford "never expressed a fear of closed quarters, tight spaces, or places with only one exit," the former boyfriend wrote.

However, on Thursday, Ford testified, "I was hoping to avoid getting on an airplane. But I eventually was able to get up the gumption with the help of some friends and get on the plane." She also acknowledged regularly -- and, in her words, "unfortunately" -- traveling on planes for work and hobbies.

And Ford explicitly told Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on Thursday that she had a second front door installed in her home because of "anxiety, phobia and PTSD-like symptoms" that she purportedly suffered in the wake of Kavanaugh's alleged attack at a house party in the 1980s -- "more especially, claustrophobia, panic and that type of thing."

In a pointed, no-holds-barred letter Tuesday evening that referenced the ex-boyfriend's declaration, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley demanded that attorneys for Ford turn over her therapist notes and other key materials, and suggested she was intentionally less than truthful about her experience with polygraph examinations during Thursday's dramatic Senate hearing.

"Your continued withholding of material evidence despite multiple requests is unacceptable as the Senate exercises its constitutional responsibility of advice and consent for a judicial nomination," Grassley, R-Iowa, wrote.

Under questioning from experienced sex-crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell last week, Ford said that she had "never" had "any discussions with anyone ... on how to take a polygraph" or "given any tips or advice to anyone who was looking to take a polygraph test." She repeatedly said the process was stressful and uncomfortable.

But in his declaration, the ex-boyfriend wrote that, "I witnessed Dr. Ford help [Monica L.] McLean prepare for a potential polygraph exam" and that Ford had "explained in detail what to expect, how polygraphs worked and helped [her] become familiar and less nervous about the exam," using her background in psychology.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/christine-blasey-ford-ex-boyfriend-says-she-helped-friend-prep-for-potential-polygraph-grassley-sounds-alarm

[StefanAVFC]

7 minutes ago, LakotaDakota said:

but that is the same in pretty much all of the metoo/yewtree etc cases where everyone is guilty until proven otherwise.

Nope.

It's a job interview, not a criminal trial.

And he displayed awful conduct during the hearing.

If you went to any entry level job interview, acted like he did and the employer had discovered some skeletons, you wouldn't get it.

He lied in the hearing, even about stupid shit like what a 'Devil's triangle' is. Read Hanoi's post rather than making lazy comments like the above.

I also missed that you linked to Fox 'News'.

Edited October 3, 2018 by StefanAVFC

[LakotaDakota]

Is it a job interview or a hearing, make your mind up...

You have no idea what happened at the time and nobody ever will.

He said, she said of the highest order.

Not many job interviews are broadcast live on tv in a room filled with hundreds of people or have someone accusing you of doing something 30 years ago.