- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Brett Kavanaugh needs to clarify his opinion on this
Posted on 7/10/18 at 6:43 am
Posted on 7/10/18 at 6:43 am
Cant believe I'm linking a Vox article but they bring up a good point.
LINK
Kavanaugh says:
But in a letter to Kenneth Starr while he worked on the Clinton investigation:
I personally believe Clinton broke laws and was justifiably impeached but at the same time I believe a Justice needs to be consistent. We the people of the right need not blindly follow if we want the sensible left to hear our point.
LINK
Kavanaugh says:
quote:
“I believe that the President should be excused from some of the burdens of ordinary citizenship while serving in office,” Kavanaugh wrote. “We should not burden a sitting President with civil suits, criminal investigations, or criminal prosecutions.” Furthermore, Kavanaugh opined that the “indictment and trial of a sitting President” would “cripple the federal government.”
But in a letter to Kenneth Starr while he worked on the Clinton investigation:
quote:
“After reflecting this evening, I am strongly opposed to giving the President any “break”... unless before his questioning on Monday, he either i) resigns or ii) confesses perjury and issues a public apology to you [Starr]. I have tried hard to bend over backwards and be fair to him... In the end, I am convinced that there really are [no reasonable defenses]. The idea of going easy on him at the questioning is abhorrent to me...
“[T]he President has disgraced his Office, the legal system, and the American people by having sex with a 22-year-old intern and turning her life into a shambles—callous and disgusting behavior that has somehow gotten lost in the shuffle. He has committed perjury (at least) in the Jones case... He has tried to disgrace [Ken Starr] and this Office with a sustained propaganda campaign that would make Nixon blush.”
I personally believe Clinton broke laws and was justifiably impeached but at the same time I believe a Justice needs to be consistent. We the people of the right need not blindly follow if we want the sensible left to hear our point.
19
Posted on 7/10/18 at 6:46 am to Placebeaux
Elena Kagan saw 'something' she liked in his background when she hired him to be a professor at Harvard Law School. That in itself is rather telling. Does he just issue opinions based on which direction the wind is blowing from that day?!?!
The two c's bearing watching: constitutionalism and consistency.
The two c's bearing watching: constitutionalism and consistency.
Posted on 7/10/18 at 6:48 am to Placebeaux
The president should be responsible for all laws.
But witchhunts and inquisitions are counterproductive.
Clinton lied under oath. It was self evident to everyone who understands the verb "is".
You can impeach a president without a violation of any laws.
You and I are probably very close in agreement on this. But there are semantics and examples in the extremes with little differences.
But witchhunts and inquisitions are counterproductive.
Clinton lied under oath. It was self evident to everyone who understands the verb "is".
You can impeach a president without a violation of any laws.
You and I are probably very close in agreement on this. But there are semantics and examples in the extremes with little differences.
Posted on 7/10/18 at 6:48 am to Placebeaux
quote:
civil suits, criminal investigations, or criminal prosecutions
Impeachment hearing before Congress.
What difference do you see here if any?
Posted on 7/10/18 at 6:49 am to Placebeaux
There is a difference between impeachment proceedings and being sued civilly by every nutjob who is just looking to waste your time.
The IC in 2000 wanted to indict Clinton criminally but decided to wait until Clinton was out of office due in part to legal memoranda written by Clinton's attorneys.
The IC in 2000 wanted to indict Clinton criminally but decided to wait until Clinton was out of office due in part to legal memoranda written by Clinton's attorneys.
Posted on 7/10/18 at 6:51 am to Placebeaux
quote:
sensible left to hear our point.
This post was edited on 7/10/18 at 6:52 am
Posted on 7/10/18 at 6:52 am to Placebeaux
There is a difference between impeachment procedings and an endless string of civil suits or criminal prosecutions that could be lobbed by any political opposition. The President can be booted by impeachment, then tried.
Posted on 7/10/18 at 6:53 am to meansonny
Yes the Trump Russia thing is ridiculous
I would like the nominee to be asked which opinion he holds and if the latter was his investigative into Clinton sincere.
I would like the nominee to be asked which opinion he holds and if the latter was his investigative into Clinton sincere.
Posted on 7/10/18 at 6:54 am to Placebeaux
You mean changed his opinion over 20 years and significant experience with the issues? Crazy huh?
Posted on 7/10/18 at 6:55 am to Placebeaux
He wrote the first part of your post after the investigation of Clinton. I believe he wrote it in 2008 during Obama’s first year in response to a bunch of noise about someone trying to prosecute him.
Posted on 7/10/18 at 6:56 am to Placebeaux
Is it not possible that his opinion on the issue has "evolved"?
He was a young lawyer when he was working with Starr. By the time he wrote the article for the Minnesota Law Review, not only had he had 10 years to think back on it, he had been on the DC Circuit bench for nearly three years, so he had seen a good deal of case law in that time.
Yes, people are going to look at it and try to make it an issue, but he was also serving in two different roles when making those statements. I think if had made both statements from the bench, it would be more worrisome, but as it is, it isn't an issue. At least it shouldn't be.
He was a young lawyer when he was working with Starr. By the time he wrote the article for the Minnesota Law Review, not only had he had 10 years to think back on it, he had been on the DC Circuit bench for nearly three years, so he had seen a good deal of case law in that time.
Yes, people are going to look at it and try to make it an issue, but he was also serving in two different roles when making those statements. I think if had made both statements from the bench, it would be more worrisome, but as it is, it isn't an issue. At least it shouldn't be.
Posted on 7/10/18 at 6:57 am to Havoc
Well he may be on the bench for over 20 years. I wouldn't want him to transform into another Kennedy or worse.
Posted on 7/10/18 at 6:58 am to Placebeaux
What if I told you that the Starr investigation was 30 years ago?
Also, could it be possible that after the Clinton impeachment his opinion changed?
If that is the best gotcha they have then they are fricked.
ETA: so his opinion was not 30 years ago, it was only 10 years ago. I guess he is a flip flopping shite bag then.
Also, could it be possible that after the Clinton impeachment his opinion changed?
If that is the best gotcha they have then they are fricked.
ETA: so his opinion was not 30 years ago, it was only 10 years ago. I guess he is a flip flopping shite bag then.
This post was edited on 7/10/18 at 7:03 am
Posted on 7/10/18 at 6:59 am to Placebeaux
I don't think they're that inconsistent. I think Kavanaugh was saying we don't need random prosecutors constantly barraging the president with frivolous crap just because of his party affiliation. You take any politician and I guarantee you can find something to "investigate." It would easily get out of hand and the founders themselves recognized it even back then.
I don't think he's saying that if there's evidence of crimes (as president) that the president shouldn't be investigated. I think he is arguing that any investigation should be done by Congress and Congress should do the punishing (i.e. impeachment, not prosecution).
With Trump there is zero evidence of any crimes, so it's not the same as Clinton. With Clinton they were investigating a known scandal that happened before he ever got into the WH. During the course of that investigation, they discovered he was banging his intern in the Oral Office.
Looking back, I am not a fan of the Starr investigation. Clinton, even with his past scandals, won the 1992 election fair and square. The Dems knew he had a sordid past back in Arkansas and apparently didn't care. The people spoke and that should be good enough (unless there are crimes committed AS president).
I don't think he's saying that if there's evidence of crimes (as president) that the president shouldn't be investigated. I think he is arguing that any investigation should be done by Congress and Congress should do the punishing (i.e. impeachment, not prosecution).
With Trump there is zero evidence of any crimes, so it's not the same as Clinton. With Clinton they were investigating a known scandal that happened before he ever got into the WH. During the course of that investigation, they discovered he was banging his intern in the Oral Office.
Looking back, I am not a fan of the Starr investigation. Clinton, even with his past scandals, won the 1992 election fair and square. The Dems knew he had a sordid past back in Arkansas and apparently didn't care. The people spoke and that should be good enough (unless there are crimes committed AS president).
Posted on 7/10/18 at 7:36 am to Placebeaux
Given the current political climate and how easy it is to obstruct an administration with baseless accusations, I have no problem with Kavanaugh's position. There is no need to reconcile it with how he felt in the past.
Ken Starr has said on a number of occasions that the evidence to convict both clintons was there in the White Water investigation but the clinton machine had simply worn him down.
That would depend on what your definition of is, is.
The clintons are without shame or remorse for their transgressions but they always seem to skate.
quote:
He has tried to disgrace [Ken Starr] and this Office with a sustained propaganda campaign that would make Nixon blush.”
Ken Starr has said on a number of occasions that the evidence to convict both clintons was there in the White Water investigation but the clinton machine had simply worn him down.
quote:
I am convinced that there really are [no reasonable defenses]
That would depend on what your definition of is, is.
The clintons are without shame or remorse for their transgressions but they always seem to skate.
This post was edited on 7/10/18 at 7:37 am
Posted on 7/10/18 at 8:04 am to Placebeaux
I agree with both sides of the coin hes playing.
President should not be burdened with unnecessary investigations unless you have a clear accusation before starting and a penal code to go along w that accusation.
Backdooring your way to his personal information so you can scrub it and look for a financial discrepancy should NEVER be allowed.
If something happens WHILE IN OFFICE, I see no problem looking into it.
President should not be burdened with unnecessary investigations unless you have a clear accusation before starting and a penal code to go along w that accusation.
Backdooring your way to his personal information so you can scrub it and look for a financial discrepancy should NEVER be allowed.
If something happens WHILE IN OFFICE, I see no problem looking into it.
Posted on 7/10/18 at 8:07 am to Placebeaux
quote:
. I have tried hard to bend over backwards and be fair to him..
Is this not consistent? He tried to stick with his belief but Clinton made it impossible.
Posted on 7/10/18 at 8:10 am to Placebeaux
quote:
I believe a Justice needs to be consistent.
In what way, and why?
Posted on 7/10/18 at 8:12 am to Placebeaux
Should have picked Pryor.
Posted on 7/10/18 at 8:58 am to themunch
quote:
quote:
civil suits, criminal investigations, or criminal prosecutions
=======
Impeachment hearing before Congress.
What difference do you see here if any?
Well for one - impeachment is an act of the House of Representatives and requires a majority vote. It has nothing to do with civil or criminal law - it is a purely political action.
If a POTUS commits a crime, you have to impeach him first - then after he is out of office he can be tried for any crime he committed.
Sort of simple.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News