• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Stalking Brett Kavanaugh

Common Sense 1

Common Sense 1

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2016
Messages
18,842
Reaction score
13,775
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
I don't think I have heard of this being done before? Guess it's the new normal? Strange...

Stalking Brett Kavanaugh

https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/08/stalking-brett-kavanaugh/

Unfortunately for the press, there’s not enough dirt on Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, which means journalists have to scrape at the bottom of the barrel.

That’s where we enter the creepy level and ProPublica has embraced it because the publication wants to know exactly who went to Washington Nationals baseball games with the judge and pictures of him at the games. Yes, the publication is still probing this disturbing development from July even though Kavanaugh bought those tickets with his personal credit card and his friends paid him back.

In July, the left went wild because The Washington Post reported that Kavanaugh “incurred tens of thousands of dollars of credit card debt buying baseball tickets over the past decade and at times reported liabilities that could have exceeded his cash accounts and investment assets.”

Anyone with a reasonable head on their shoulders rolled their eyes because how many of us have taken out loans on houses, cars, or other expenses because we couldn’t pay the amount up front? So the problem with Kavanaugh is that he’s not rich enough to pay for everything out of pocket?

ProPublica found a problem with Kavanaugh spending so much on baseball season tickets even though he paid for the tickets with his credit card and his friends paid him back.

Did you attend a Washington Nationals game in 2017?

You might be able to help us. Really. https://t.co/LAhGBWiI6u pic.twitter.com/Y2Xhkx6ir0

— ProPublica (@ProPublica) August 13, 2018
 
WTF is "ProPublica"?
 
Common Sense 1 said:
I don't think I have heard of this being done before? Guess it's the new normal? Strange...

Stalking Brett Kavanaugh

https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/08/stalking-brett-kavanaugh/

Unfortunately for the press, there’s not enough dirt on Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, which means journalists have to scrape at the bottom of the barrel.

That’s where we enter the creepy level and ProPublica has embraced it because the publication wants to know exactly who went to Washington Nationals baseball games with the judge and pictures of him at the games. Yes, the publication is still probing this disturbing development from July even though Kavanaugh bought those tickets with his personal credit card and his friends paid him back.

In July, the left went wild because The Washington Post reported that Kavanaugh “incurred tens of thousands of dollars of credit card debt buying baseball tickets over the past decade and at times reported liabilities that could have exceeded his cash accounts and investment assets.”

Anyone with a reasonable head on their shoulders rolled their eyes because how many of us have taken out loans on houses, cars, or other expenses because we couldn’t pay the amount up front? So the problem with Kavanaugh is that he’s not rich enough to pay for everything out of pocket?

ProPublica found a problem with Kavanaugh spending so much on baseball season tickets even though he paid for the tickets with his credit card and his friends paid him back.

Did you attend a Washington Nationals game in 2017?

You might be able to help us. Really. https://t.co/LAhGBWiI6u pic.twitter.com/Y2Xhkx6ir0

— ProPublica (@ProPublica) August 13, 2018
Click to expand...

The baseball tickets are neither here nor there. I'm satisfied everything was above-board there.

My problem with Kavanaugh is with the questionable answers he gave to Senators Durbin and Leahy during his confirmation hearing in 2006.

If, despite his testimony, it turns out that he was involved in formulating the Bush Administration's detention policies and then refused to recuse himself as a DC Court of Appeals Judge when cases challenging those policies came up before it, it would present a catastrophic lapse in judgment that could possibly overturn the convictions of top-tier Al Queda prisoners.
 
Harshaw said:
WTF is "ProPublica"?
Click to expand...

Wow. Seriously? You've missed some excellent investigative journalism over the years.

They're definitely liberal, but they're a non-profit and do journalism like it's supposed to be done. Just a few of the awards they won in 2018:

2018
NLGJA Award, Al Neuharth Award for Innovation in Investigative Journalism
Gerald Loeb Award, Beat Reporting
Gerald Loeb Award, Local
Edward R. Murrow Award, Excellence in Innovation
Deadline Club Award, Newspaper or Digital Feature Reporting
Deadline Club Award, Minority Focus
Deadline Club Award, Public Interest
Excellence in Financial Journalism Award, Best General Reporting
Excellence in Financial Journalism Award, Public Service
Excellence in Financial Journalism Award, Best Local Reporting
Peter Lisagor Award, Best Multimedia Collaboration
Peter Lisagor Award, Best Multimedia Feature Presentation
Peter Lisagor Award, Best Investigative Reporting in a General Interest Daily Newspaper, News Service or News Bureau
Peter Lisagor Award, Watchdog Award for Excellence in Public Interest Reporting
Richard H. Driehaus Foundation Award for Investigative Reporting
Livingston Award, Finalist
MOLLY National Journalism Prize
Regional Edward R. Murrow Award, Hard News
Regional Edward R. Murrow Award, Excellence in Social Media
Regional Edward R. Murrow Award, Excellence in Innovation
Peabody Award, Radio/Podcast
Sigma Delta Chi Award, Excellence in Journalism
Pulitzer Prize for Local Reporting, Finalist
Pulitzer Prize for Explanatory Reporting, Finalist
Richard H. Driehaus Foundation Awards for Investigative Reporting, Finalist
Paul Tobenkin Memorial Award
Taylor Family Award for Fairness in Journalism
Investigative Reporters and Editors Award, Radio/Audio - Large
ASNE Award, Dori J. Maynard Award for Justice in Journalism
Al Nakkula Award for Police Reporting
SABEW Best in Business Award, Explanatory
SABEW Best in Business Award, Banking/Finance
SABEW Best in Business Award, Technology
SABEW Best in Business Award, Investigative
SABEW Best in Business Award, Health/Science
Goldsmith Prize for Investigative Reporting
AHCJ Award for Excellence in Health Care Journalism, Consumer/Feature
George Polk Award, Medical Reporting
Sidney Award, February
Society for News Design Award of Excellence, Multiple Categories
Click to expand...

Not sure what they're looking for with Kavanaugh, but they're a legitimate organization.
 
JasperL said:
They're definitely liberal, but they're a non-profit and do journalism like it's supposed to be done.
Click to expand...

Is this particular thing an example of that?
 
Harshaw said:
Is this particular thing an example of that?
Click to expand...

No, because it's not a story. They're just seeing if there's anything there. If they report something, we can revisit.

No kidding, if you're intellectually curious and don't mind reading "liberal" journalism, they've done some great reporting having nothing to do with politics over the years.
 
Cordelier said:
The baseball tickets are neither here nor there. I'm satisfied everything was above-board there.

My problem with Kavanaugh is with the questionable answers he gave to Senators Durbin and Leahy during his confirmation hearing in 2006.

If, despite his testimony, it turns out that he was involved in formulating the Bush Administration's detention policies and then refused to recuse himself as a DC Court of Appeals Judge when cases challenging those policies came up before it, it would present a catastrophic lapse in judgment that could possibly overturn the convictions of top-tier Al Queda prisoners.
Click to expand...

The Senate committee needs to see the papers that the republicans are currently denying it because it would clear up once and for if he lied under oath to the Senate in regards to having been involved in discussions about detainment and, more specifically, torture.

Most telling that they're being refused this.
 
JasperL said:
No kidding, if you're intellectually curious and don't mind reading "liberal" journalism
Click to expand...

Real journalism has no political bias.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
The Senate committee needs to see the papers that the republicans are currently denying it because it would clear up once and for if he lied under oath to the Senate in regards to having been involved in discussions about detainment and, more specifically, torture.

Most telling that they're being refused this.
Click to expand...

Agreed... after all, we're talking about the Supreme Court here - is there any documentation which should be out of bounds when deciding about a confirmation? The papers are going to be released at some point in time... and if he's confirmed, the odds are pretty good Kavanaugh will be on the Court when they are. If it comes to light that he's a liar, or that he has questionable judgement, or that he has potentially jeopardized national security by not recusing himself, what are we going to do then? I don't care how conservative or liberal a SCOTUS Judge is... we can take ideological debate. What we can't take is having a liar on the court.... because then that weakens our whole justice system.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
The Senate committee needs to see the papers that the republicans are currently denying it because it would clear up once and for if he lied under oath to the Senate in regards to having been involved in discussions about detainment and, more specifically, torture.

Most telling that they're being refused this.
Click to expand...

You know what else gets me about this whole issue? When the Washington Post story came out a year later that contradicted Kavanaugh's testimony, Senator Durbin sent him a letter asking for his side of the story:

June 26, 2007

Dear Judge Kavanaugh:

Yesterday the Washington Post published a lengthy article about Vice President Cheney's role in the policymaking process of the Bush Administration. In this article, you are reported to have participated in a "heated" White House meeting in 2002 about whether U.S. citizens who had been declared enemy combatants should be given access to lawyers. The information in this article was confirmed today by a report on National Public Radio.

These reports appear to contradict sworn testimony you gave to the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 9, 2006 at your nomination hearing. At that hearing, I asked you about the role you played, as one of the President's top White House lawyers, in the selection of William Haynes, a controversial nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and proponent of permissive policies with regard to torture.

I asked: "What did you know about Mr. Haynes's role in crafting the Adminstration's detention and interrogation policies?"

You testified: "Senator, I did not – I was not involved and am not involved in the questions about the rules governing detention of combatants – and so I do not have the involvement with that."

In light of the Washington Post and National Public Radio reports, your sworn testimony appears inaccurate and misleading. You participated in a critical meeting in which the Administration made a decision on whether to extend access to counsel to detainees, an issue that is clearly a "rule governing detention of combatants." By testifying under oath that you were not involved in this issue, it appears that you misled me, the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the nation.

Therefore, I request that you provide the Senate Judiciary Committee with an explanation for this apparent contradiction.

In addition, I request that you disqualify yourself in all pending and subsequent cases involving detainees and enemy combatants. Your lack of candor at your nomination hearing suggests you cannot approach these cases with impartiality and an open mind.

The federal judicial recusal statute, 28 U.S.C. 455, sets forth numerous conditions in which a federal judge must seek recusal. One of these conditions appears to apply to you. It states that a federal judge should disqualify himself in any proceeding "in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

The court on which you serve, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, has exclusive jurisdiction to hear cases under the Detainee Treatment Act and Military Commissions Act. I hope you will recuse yourself in cases involving these and other statutes that come before you during your service on this court.

Please respond to this letter at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,

Richard J. Durbin

United States Senator
Click to expand...

Sounds perfectly reasonable, right? A United States Senator reads a story that seemingly conflicts with your testimony and he asks for your side of the story. Who knows? Maybe the Post got it wrong. Do you know that Judge Kavanaugh has never responded to this letter? How's that for a big "F*** ya! I got what I wanted!"??

If he was worthy of sitting on the Supreme Court, and acting in good faith, you'd think he would have at least responded to the Senator to set the record straight, wouldn't you?
 
Josie said:
Real journalism has no political bias.
Click to expand...

That's nonsense. If that's taken literally, there is no "real" journalism and never has been. We've all got biases, and that includes reporters and organizations if nothing else indicated by what they choose to delve into.

Besides, I put "liberal" in quotes for a reason - I don't find them all that liberal, just good, thorough, and trustworthy, but if you've not heard of ProPublica despite hundreds of awards and lots of great reporting over the years, it's going to be more "liberal" than the outlets you're used to reading.
 
JasperL said:
That's nonsense. If that's taken literally, there is no "real" journalism and never has been. We've all got biases, and that includes reporters and organizations if nothing else indicated by what they choose to delve into.

Besides, I put "liberal" in quotes for a reason - I don't find them all that liberal, just good, thorough, and trustworthy, but if you've not heard of ProPublica despite hundreds of awards and lots of great reporting over the years, it's going to be more "liberal" than the outlets you're used to reading.
Click to expand...

Yes, we all have biases, but journalists are supposed to report without bias. That doesn't mean they don't have personal opinions, it means their job is to not let their personal opinions interfere with their reporting.
 
Josie said:
Yes, we all have biases, but journalists are supposed to report without bias. That doesn't mean they don't have personal opinions, it means their job is to not let their personal opinions interfere with their reporting.
Click to expand...

TBH I don't care all that much about bias. ProPublica reported this story on Kris Kobach, for example. It's not flattering, but is it biased? I'm not sure - the article is accurate I'd bet, and the reporter quotes Kobach, spokesmen, and supporters as well as detractors, so it's good reporting IMO. Fox News isn't going to run it, though, which is how a group with hundreds of excellence in journalism awards goes under the radar for conservatives.

Recently they ran this one on the Trump administration and a shadow cabinet of three Mar-A-Lago cronies running the VA in secret Biased reporting or good reporting. I can't tell....

https://www.propublica.org/article/...oskowitz-marc-sherman-shadow-rulers-of-the-va

On the other side, I know the WSJ has a conservative bias - it's kind of inherent in their mission as the paper of record for the business community. So I doubt I'll be seeing pro-union investigative reports, those documenting wage theft, or whatever other "sins" companies engage in on occasion to keep payroll and benefits to a minimum, at least not unless they're "how to" articles. But they are a fine paper on the reporting side so I trust their reporting despite a clear "bias" in favor of businesses.
 
Last edited:
JasperL said:
No, because it's not a story. They're just seeing if there's anything there. If they report something, we can revisit.

No kidding, if you're intellectually curious and don't mind reading "liberal" journalism, they've done some great reporting having nothing to do with politics over the years.
Click to expand...

I'm not worried about the bias of it. I'm worried about the asininity and juvenility of this request on their part.

If it's what they (and you?) consider "journalism like it supposed to be done," that speaks volumes.
 
Harshaw said:
I'm not worried about the bias of it. I'm worried about the asininity and juvenility of this request on their part.

If it's what they (and you?) consider "journalism like it supposed to be done," that speaks volumes.
Click to expand...

It's not even a story. And they're just sending out feelers. I find the situation odd - the guy isn't wealthy at all, so why's he buying baseball tickets for a bunch of folks and needing to be repaid? Makes no sense on the face of it, so some reporter sent out some feelers. Not every idea turns into a story.

And have you seen some of the garbage on Fox News? Print and TV? Fair to cherry pick one story and dismiss them as serious news outlet because of it? LOLOLetc...

FWIW, what should "speak volumes" if you're at all intellectually curious and honest is the hundreds of excellence in journalism awards they've received over the years in many areas/fields, different media.

Seems a fairer way to judge a body of work than on one non-story, to me at least.
 
Last edited:
JasperL said:
It's not even a story. And they're just sending out feelers. I find the situation odd - the guy isn't wealthy at all, so why's he buying baseball tickets for a bunch of folks and needing to be repaid? Makes no sense on the face of it, so some reporter sent out some feelers. Not every idea turns into a story.

And have you seen some of the garbage on Fox News? Print and TV? Fair to cherry pick one story and dismiss them as serious news outlet because of it? LOLOLetc...

FWIW, what should "speak volumes" if you're at all intellectually curious and honest is the hundreds of excellence in journalism awards they've received over the years in many areas/fields, different media.

Seems a fairer way to judge a body of work than on one non-story, to me at least.
Click to expand...

If you can find me propping up Fox News, I'd love to see it.

But this particular thing is indefensible.

Is it really so outrageous that he was the guy who offered to buy season tickets for a group of friends and have them pay him back later? You honestly think that "doesn't make sense"?

Here's what it suggests to me: he really likes baseball. He really likes to go to baseball games with friends. He was buying them anyway, so he said "hey, I'm buying them -- want me to get you some, too? You can pay me later." Maybe he does this regularly, because he's just that guy among his friends.

If you (you personally OR the general "you") really find it suspicious, I'd have to think you're looking for trouble, perhaps even hoping for it.
 
There is suspicion he may have attended a baseball game with a certain former elected government official that wears mom jeans and throws like a girl...but thats just a rumor, probably meant to destroy his character.
 
Harshaw said:
If you can find me propping up Fox News, I'd love to see it.
Click to expand...

My point was if you want to dismiss ANY news org for no particular reason other than ignorance, pick out one stupid article on the site or one stupid segment, and dismiss a decade of work!

But this particular thing is indefensible.

Is it really so outrageous that he was the guy who offered to buy season tickets for a group of friends and have them pay him back later? You honestly think that "doesn't make sense"?
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't make a lot of sense, or it's sort of weird. I've bought tickets for friends 100 times, and generally get paid back immediately. Apparently more than once he's had credit card debt on the books long enough to make financial disclosures about the amount. That seems odd. Could be he's got inconsiderate friends who left him hanging on $thousands for tickets because they're assholes. Fine.

But the bottom line is investigative journalists ask questions. Probably the VAST majority of the time they get boring answers and that's the end of the inquiry. You're irrationally blaming ProPublica for asking questions. Get over it - that's their f'ing job. Most "journalists" these days are glorified stenographers who dutifully repeat talking points by political hacks, or rewrite press releases put out by their corporate advertisers.

I'm glad there are still a few actual investigative journalists out there, and I don't really care if their lines of inquiry hit dead ends MOST of the time. That's the....JOB. That's exactly why there is so little of it these days. Media outlets can no longer afford reporters who don't crank out 4 stories a week, and that means most reporters turn to mindless clickbait stenography to get through the week.

Here's what it suggests to me: he really likes baseball. He really likes to go to baseball games with friends. He was buying them anyway, so he said "hey, I'm buying them -- want me to get you some, too? You can pay me later." Maybe he does this regularly, because he's just that guy among his friends.

If you (you personally OR the general "you") really find it suspicious, I'd have to think you're looking for trouble, perhaps even hoping for it
Click to expand...

Fine, you're probably right. Probably, suggests, maybe.... but you don't know. Reporters ask questions to find out!

And sure, if you see something a bit odd and you're a reporter, at some level you are looking or hoping that there's a story there, and trouble or corruption is a good story. What part of the job of investigative journalism is difficult to grasp here?
 
Last edited:
JasperL said:
My point was if you want to dismiss ANY news org for no particular reason other than ignorance, pick out one stupid article on the site or one stupid segment, and dismiss a decade of work!
Click to expand...

I dismissed Fox News a long time ago (along with all the rest of the 24-hour cable news cesspool), so I'm not sure what point you're actually making. Not one applicable to me, or what I've said, whatever it is.



No, it doesn't make a lot of sense, or it's sort of weird. I've bought tickets for friends 100 times, and generally get paid back immediately. Apparently more than once he's had credit card debt on the books long enough to make financial disclosures about the amount. That seems odd. Could be he's got inconsiderate friends who left him hanging on $thousands for tickets because they're assholes. Fine.

But the bottom line is investigative journalists ask questions. Probably the VAST majority of the time they get boring answers and that's the end of the inquiry. You're irrationally blaming ProPublica for asking questions. Get over it - that's their f'ing job. Most "journalists" these days are glorified stenographers who dutifully repeat talking points by political hacks, or rewrite press releases put out by their corporate advertisers.



Fine, you're probably right. Probably, suggests, maybe.... but you don't know. Reporters ask questions to find out!

And sure, if you see something a bit odd and you're a reporter, at some level you are looking or hoping that there's a story there, and trouble or corruption is a good story. What part of the job of investigative journalism is difficult to grasp here?
Click to expand...

I think the thought process necessary to think there's any "there" there goes a bit beyond mere "bias" to a proactive attempt to assassinate character.
 
Harshaw said:
I dismissed Fox News a long time ago (along with all the rest of the 24-hour cable news cesspool), so I'm not sure what point you're actually making. Not one applicable to me, or what I've said, whatever it is.
Click to expand...

The point was simple enough. You quoted it. Rephrased, you admitted you never heard of ProPublica, but judge them as an organization based on this one inquiry. It's lazy, based on ignorance.

I think the thought process necessary to think there's any "there" there goes a bit beyond mere "bias" to a proactive attempt to assassinate character.
Click to expand...

LOL, OK. By asking questions they're trying to assassinate his character. Got it. Or, they're asking questions, which is their job. If there's no story there, nothing with which to "assassinate his character." But god forbid we have actual journalists follow leads including dead ends for a job with a lifetime appointment. Best if news outlets just repeat the talking points put out by Kavanaugh's no doubt well paid PR team.
 
JasperL said:
The point was simple enough. You quoted it. Rephrased, you admitted you never heard of ProPublica, but judge them as an organization based on this one inquiry. It's lazy, based on ignorance.



LOL, OK. By asking questions they're trying to assassinate his character. Got it. Or, they're asking questions, which is their job. If there's no story there, nothing with which to "assassinate his character." But god forbid we have actual journalists follow leads including dead ends for a job with a lifetime appointment. Best if news outlets just repeat the talking points put out by Kavanaugh's no doubt well paid PR team.
Click to expand...

I'm fairly sure what I actually said was clear enough, and these rewrites of what I said aren't it.
 
Harshaw said:
I'm fairly sure what I actually said was clear enough, and these rewrites of what I said aren't it.
Click to expand...

Right, it was clear, you said asking questions about an arrangement that seems odd to some of us, if not you personally, "goes a bit beyond mere "bias" to a proactive attempt to assassinate character."

ProPublica says they got a tip that there's a possible story there. Following up on such things is the JOB of investigative journalists.
 
JasperL said:
Right, it was clear, you said asking questions about an arrangement that seems odd to some of us, if not you personally, "goes a bit beyond mere "bias" to a proactive attempt to assassinate character."
Click to expand...

No, that isn't, in fact, what I said:

Harshaw said:
I think the thought process necessary to think there's any "there" there goes a bit beyond mere "bias" to a proactive attempt to assassinate character.
Click to expand...

ProPublica says they got a tip that there's a possible story there. Following up on such things is the JOB of investigative journalists.
Click to expand...

They didn't say anything about a "tip":

https://www.propublica.org/getinvolved/brett-kavanaugh-nationals-baseball-supreme-court

What they did do is cite what is "known":

Here’s what we know already:

  • We know he bought season tickets at the end of 2016, likely for the 2017 season.
  • We know he also bought tickets to some playoff games. He might not have been sitting in the same seats for those.
  • He has reportedly gone to games in the past with U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg, an Obama nominee who is his ex-roommate from law school.
  • At this year’s All-Star Game, he sat in the stands above first base. These probably weren’t in the same part of the stadium as his 2017 season tickets, but could perhaps offer a clue into where he likes to sit.
  • He’s been photographed at least twice wearing blue striped polo shirts.
Click to expand...

As the above appears to be what it is which makes them suspicious, I will say again:

I think the thought process necessary to think there's any "there" there goes a bit beyond mere "bias" to a proactive attempt to assassinate character.
 
Harshaw said:
I'm fairly sure what I actually said was clear enough, and these rewrites of what I said aren't it.
Click to expand...

Corrupt Kavanaugh Perjured himself to get on the Federal Bench in the First Place. Want More?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom