Down With Tyranny, this image to this post:
It staggers the mind that such information, if true, was not vetted at hearings.
If asking about the money is verboten, why hold hearings?
Per the headline above, this websearch.
There is not a lack of confirmatory links. But - mainstream media took a big time hike on the question of Kavanaugh and the money.Groping/raping stories aplenty, but whatever happened to "follow the money?"
Wtf?
If true, the situation is grotesque. Worse, what is your guess as to, why, under the rug?
...........................................................
And, does this and this ring your bell as government as it should be?
That first item, back in 2000, and who shows up facilitating extra money routing to judges - right up front -
Along with members of Congress, elected officers and federal employees, federal judges were banned from receiving speaking fees, also called honoraria, in 1989. They can receive honoraria in his or her name only if it is donated to charity.
The version of the appropriations bill reported out of committee on Sept. 8 states that the ban "shall not apply to any individual while that individual is a justice or judge of the United States."
Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist supported the change in an April letter to Sen. Mitch McConnell, R.-Ky., who had sponsored legislation removing the ban.
"The disparity between the salaries of the judicial and legal profession cannot continue without compromising the morale of the federal judiciary and eventually its quality," Rehnquist wrote. "Legislation that lifts or significantly alters the ban on honoraria would provide some assistance."
Supreme Court judges [back in 2000] make between $173,600 and $181,400 a year. According to the National Law Journal, Circuit court of appeals judges have a salary of $145,000. Judges in district, bankruptcy, court of claims, and other federal courts make between $125,764 and $136,700.
[bolding in original - italics/color added]
Curiously, in this reporting it would have been keen had reporting also mentioned the size of the Thomas speaking fee, if any, for his grossly fatuous performance.
And, private jet to and from the venue, entertainment while there?
_____________UPDATE_____________
Link.
________FURTHER UPDATE________
And on the web so it must be true; Mitch is Number One.
________FURTHER UPDATE_________
Speaking fees was an issue in the 2016 election where Ms. Clinton took three quarters of a million dollars for speeches to Goldman Sachs - personal cash, not contributions to campaigning nor election related PAC spending.
And it was Mitch and Rehnquist putting their heads together who opened that cash spigot when previously speech-money was barred. Shameful? Yes. Now fully prosecution free? Yes. It's like a bribe except a speech is not considered favorable action in return for a cash payment. In the Clinton case, was the money likely to influence future action had Trump not won? Who can say.
A link, giving an idea of who you can buy a speech from, via one particular vendor rep. Top dollar for questionable value. Two other speaker stables, here and here.
It is a competitive industry.
And, hey, I can book this pile for thirty to fifty grand. Up there with Mitch and the blue whale.
________FURTHER UPDATE_______
In fairness to Kavanaugh and spouse, explanations were given and help from family was a part of things, apparently, with each spouse coming from upper class cash backgrounds. Parents helping children is a norm in the nation when parents can afford it.