Well that seems like a stupid way to lose money.

I like the quote "vaguely connected the dots". Its a signature tune for anything anti Trump.

Alright asshole, tell me:

What part of having multiple mullions and billions of dollars in loans given out by a family member that works at a foreign bank doesn't demand recusal on a case about money in politics?

I'm curious: what would be enough to convince you of some impropriety?

I'm going to reserve judgment until this is vetted by a reputable source. Without telling us what Juniors role actually was this could be a tarded as those who claimed Hillary gave away uranium.

Fair, but I posit the same question to you as justsaycc:

What part of having multiple mullions and billions of dollars in loans given out by a family member that works at a foreign bank doesn't demand recusal on a case about money in politics?

I am open to the idea it's entirely wrong and his son doesnt work there at all. But that doesn't look to be true.

Your question is valid, but, like the Hillary case, I would like to know the extent of his role. If he happened to be on a board that approved it but had really nothing to do with it other than joining with a vote based on work presented by others, it is not a biggie.

"The younger Mr. Kennedy spent more than a decade at Deutsche Bank, eventually rising to become the bank’s global head of real estate capital markets, and he worked closely with Mr. Trump when he was a real estate developer, according to two people with knowledge of his role."

This does not really tell us anything about the relationship. We have several facts about junior but we are not told how they relate to each other. If junior worked with Trump when he was a real-estate developer ( he? trump or junior) and Junior worked with Deutches bank for a decade eventually becoming head of real estate capital markets, it is not clear that the two things overlapped. ( though clearly that is what one would take from the way it is phrased). If the two thing overlap it is also not clear if he was directly involved in Trump realated transactions ( suppose, for example, he became head of that division after the loans were granted and before that he was in the mail room.)

There is no question Trump is a fucking scumbag, but we need more facts or at least how they integrate to make this a meaningful connection. As it is, it just conspiracy mongering.

Problem:

My issues has fuck all to do with Trump himself. Answer the question, please.

I'm a bit puzzled if you don't think that the specifics matter here. Banks give loans. Are you saying that every justice who has a relative that works for a bank must recuse themselves? Unless Kennedy's son is important to the case, rather than just in the class of people who worked for banks, than it is a none issue. The specific facts are very important and we are not given enough to actually evaluate them.

The issue:

Citizen United is about money in politics, a case which Kennedy decided. He did not recuse himself despite having every good reason to: close family is involved in the issue in dispute.

It doesn't matter who he gave the money to, or even how much, the issue is that a Supreme Court case was allowed to be decided by someone with a basic conflict of interest. Tell me, that loan, was Trump a political candidate before 2008 when the loan was given?

Yes?

Well guess what that means?

While I disagree, I would hate to say every judge with or who has a relative with working ovaries recuse themselves in abortion cases, there still have not been enough facts alleged to support your premise. The proffered facts still do not support your conclusion. The only tell us that at some time he worked for a bank and that at some time he was involved with trump and that at some time the back loaned trump money. We need more.

Trump was the real estate developer, not Kennedy, I thought that was pretty clear. After leaving DB, Kennedy became CEO of LNR, which bailed out Kushner with a huge loan on his troubled 666 property. It's highly unlikely that the CEO of a company would not have had to give approval on a loan of that size. Citizens United aside, something stinks.

I agree something stinks. I just want all the facts laid out and not just a random set of facts that look suspicious. That is the sort of mind set that lead people to think Hillary sold uranium.

Fact: Kennedy's son works at Deutchbank

Fact: Kennedy's son was in charge of giving out loans at this bank in 2008.

Fact: Donald Trump ran for President in 2000

Fact: Justice Kennedy was the deciding vote on Citizens United in 2010, and wrote the majority opinion.

These facts alone should have been grounds for stepping back. There are other fun facts that are just fun on their own, and may or may not relate in any way.

Fact: Deutchbank was found guilty of money laundering

Fact: Deutchbank just ate a fine for not doing the things the judge told them to do to stop this:

https://www.dw.com/en/us-fines-deutsche-bank-41-million-for-money-laundering-control-lapses/a-39056089

But one thing is for sure, no matter how you slice it, this is nothing like saying a woman that has ovaries shouldn't rule over a case involving abortion. Trying to tie these extremely dissimilar things together leads me to ask why the fuck you thought I wasn't going to call that out?

You are talking about the likely inheritor of that man's estate. The fuck are you talking about that just because his son deals in finances related to thing he is ruling on he shouldn't recuse himself.

Fucking repeat that to yourself until you understand it.

Still need more. Was Kennedy involved in the decision to loan Trump money? Not according to Stephanie Ruhle of MSNBC who worked at DB with Kennedy. According to her he handled institutional loans and denied Trump who then had to go through the private loans side of things handled by others. ( Did he exert influence to get Trump the loan through those others? Maybe but no evidence.)

Was there a conflict of intererst?

(C) Disqualification.

(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which:

(d) the judge or the judge’s spouse, or a person related to either within the third degree of relationship, or the spouse of such a person is:

(i) a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party; ( nope)

(ii) acting as a lawyer in the proceeding; (nope)

(iii) known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; or (maybe)

(iv) to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding; (nope)


The only basis on which the judge should recuse himself is possibly iii. You are assuming that Justice Kennedy was aware of all his sons actions ( in my expereince most judges don't wan't to know such things to avoid this very issue) and, apparently, future plans. Since db was not a party to the case but only a member of a class that could potentially benefit from it ( a corporation) and his son was a member of a subclass that also could potentially benefit from it ( someone who works for a corporation) you are going to have to allege some individual benefit and some prior knowledge by Justice Kennedy. Otherwise the fact that he works in finance rather than at a different type of corporation that wants to run a political ad is irrelevant.

Dont usually ever go the personal antecdote to make a point but I am on my phone at the DMV and only got my thumbs brain and google. Anyway... if my grandfather had to recuse himself from a case involving the grocery where my grandmother worked, with far less at stake than this, I am going to go ahead and say Kennedy knew exactly what he was supposed to do, he just didnt bother.

That would be a direct conflict. Since the place she worked for was a party and because she is a household member. The code of conduct makes a clear distinction between household members ( including children but limited to minor children living at home) where knowledge is assumed and others where there must be actual knowledge. (this would have been in c (1)(c) of what I listed above. I did not include it since, without looking up the sons age and where he lived, I assumed it didn't fit).

You are certainly welcome to say you think Kennedy had actual knowledge and later behavior certainly raises suspicions ( the kuschner loan being by far the most damning) but ( and this was really my only initial point) build the case with evidence at each step, not just coincidence implied connections, and innuendo. That is just too Fox News.