Etiquette



DP Etiquette

First rule: Don't be a jackass.

Other rules: Do not attack or insult people you disagree with. Engage with facts, logic and beliefs. Out of respect for others, please provide some sources for the facts and truths you rely on if you are asked for that. If emotion is getting out of hand, get it back in hand. To limit dehumanizing people, don't call people or whole groups of people disrespectful names, e.g., stupid, dumb or liar. Insulting people is counterproductive to rational discussion. Insult makes people angry and defensive. All points of view are welcome, right, center, left and elsewhere. Just disagree, but don't be belligerent or reject inconvenient facts, truths or defensible reasoning.

Saturday, April 29, 2023

News bits: Brett Kavanaugh's nastiness files; Military secrets leaker mindset; Dem Party corruption

The Guardian reports about what we all knew long ago:

Revealed: Senate investigation into Brett Kavanaugh 
assault claims contained serious omissions
The 2018 investigation into the then supreme court nominee claimed there was ‘no evidence’ behind claims of sexual assault

A 2018 Senate investigation that found there was “no evidence” to substantiate any of the claims of sexual assault against the US supreme court justice Brett Kavanaugh contained serious omissions, according to new information obtained by the Guardian.

The 28-page report was released by the Republican senator Chuck Grassley, the then chairman of the Senate judiciary committee. 
In an interview with the Guardian, Maxey confirmed that he was still a senior in high school at the time of the alleged incident, and said he had never been contacted by any of the Republican staffers who were conducting the investigation.

“I was not at Yale,” he said. “I was a senior in high school at the time. I was not in New Haven.” He added: “These people can say what they want, and there are no consequences, ever.”
How long ago did we know? At least since Sept. 2021. Way back then it was obvious to those with open minds that (i) Kavanaugh was a drunken sex predator, (ii) a liar, and (iii) Trump ordered the FBI to Whitewash the beer boofer's record. 

Earlier this summer, reports said the Justice Department had confirmed that, in 2018, the FBI received more than 4,500 tips against Kavanaugh and sent “relevant” ones to the Trump White House, where they disappeared. This month, Kavanaugh joined the 5-to-4 ruling allowing a Texas antiabortion bounty-hunting law to take effect, though it plainly violates court precedents upholding a constitutional right to abortion. To many, that provided further evidence — along with his previous support for a Louisiana antiabortion law — that he’d bamboozled Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who provided the linchpin vote for his confirmation after he assured her that he respected those precedents as “settled law.”

The hearing record signaled that Kavanaugh was a Republican with an ax to grind long before his televised tirade in 2018 dismissing the misconduct allegations as a Democratic “political hit” — payback for Donald Trump’s election and Kavanaugh’s role in Ken Starr’s Javert-like pursuit of the Clintons.

He warned us then: “What goes around comes around.”
Yeah, no shit Sherlock. What filthy unfairness you falsely thought came around to you, crapped on us in your enraged, self-righteous Christian fanatic decision to support taking abortion rights away from all of us in your Christofascist decision in Dobbs

Q: Is an assessment that Kavanaugh is a lying sex predator hyperbole or otherwise unfair or unjustifiable?




____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

Apparently, that fine young man who leaked damaging military secrets was really angry and wanted human slaughter. The AP reports:
WORCESTER, Mass. (AP) — The Massachusetts Air National guardsman accused of leaking highly classified military documents kept an arsenal of guns and said on social media that he would like to kill a “ton of people,” prosecutors said in arguing Thursday that 21-year-old Jack Teixeira should remain in jail for his trial.

But the judge at Teixeira’s detention hearing put off an immediate decision on whether he should be kept in custody until his trial or released to home confinement or under other conditions. Teixeira was led away from the court in handcuffs, black rosary beads around his neck, pending that ruling.  
In Teixeira’s detention hearing, Magistrate Judge David Hennessy expressed skepticism of defense arguments that the government hasn’t alleged Teixeira intended leaked information to be widely disseminated.

“Somebody under the age of 30 has no idea that when they put something on the internet that it could end up anywhere in this world?” the judge asked. “Seriously?”
I guess the rosary beads this fine young Christian Catholic carried was evidence that God approved and encouraged his desire for mass slaughter of innocents. 

But, one has gotta hand it to the defense attorneys to argue that the enraged traitor had no idea that stuff he posted on the interwebs could be seen by the public. That is evidence of how blatantly ridiculous that stupid nonsense arguments in court can be and still not trigger sanctions against the attorneys. Those outrageous arguments are considered reasonable and acceptable.

IMO, that judge should be impeached and the attorneys run for president on the Republican Party ticket. (I know, none of that makes any sense. But it makes the same amount of sense as what the traitor's attorneys argued.)

____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

Democrats can be incredibly stupid and/or corrupt: ABC News reports that all nine Supreme Court justices don't want any ethics rules:
There's no conservative-liberal divide on the U.S. Supreme Court when it comes to calls for a new, enforceable ethics code.

All nine justices, in a rare step, on Tuesday released a joint statement reaffirming their voluntary adherence to a general code of conduct but rebutting proposals for independent oversight, mandatory compliance with ethics rules and greater transparency in cases of recusal.

The implication, though not expressly stated, is that the court unanimously rejects legislation proposed by Democrats seeking to impose on the justices the same ethics obligations applied to all other federal judges.

"The justices ... consult a wide variety of authorities to address specific ethical issues," the members of the high court said in a document titled "Statement on Ethics Principles and Practices."

It appears to be the first time an entire court has publicly explained its approach to ethics issues and attested to specific parts of federal law governing their conduct.

"This statement aims to provide new clarity to the bar and to the public on how justices address certain recurring issues," they wrote, "and also seeks to dispel some common misconceptions."
Well, what can one say to that hard kick in the groin? 

Back when she was House speaker, Pelosi reluctantly agreed to support a law making insider trading by members of congress and their staff and families illegal. In essence, Pelosi openly supported corruption, but only the optics of the thing got her reluctant support.** Now, all three Democrats on the US Supreme Court have publicly endorsed corruption by justices on the bench that secrecy and no ethical rules effectively shields. 

** I don't know if that law ever passed. For all I know, insider trading in congress is rampant, fun and legal. 

Two initial reactions:
1. Maybe I am not going to vote for Biden in 2024 because the Democratic Party is too fracking corrupt. The Dems are trying hard to push me away and maybe I'll just have to give in and walk away.

2. Impeach all nine justices on what is essentially a corrupt, illegitimate court -- they are all traitors, crooks and/or liars, actively, implicitly or by whatever other ways one can be a traitor, crook and/or liar.

Q: Are my initial reactions unwarranted, unjustifiable and/or unwise? (I'm in a foul mood this morning 😡)

No comments:

Post a Comment