Jump to content

Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Thread

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 17.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Yuk
Yuk

No, you guys went Republican to ethnonationalist.

Bozo_Casanova
Bozo_Casanova

When Georgetown Prep sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're

TexArcher
TexArcher

In 2016 I was a moderate.  Socially liberal, fiscally conservative, but not quite a libertarian.  I would have considered voting for Kasich had he won the nomination. Now?  I will probably never

Js1

Js1 85929

Posted
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, RayDog said:

His seat is up in 2020, so he has to make up his mind at some point if he is running for Senate or president. This would be a good way to kick off his presidential campaign.

“Bring it” will be his campaign theme. Guarantee that was focus grouped before he uttered it at Cowboy John 

Edited by Js1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MAROON

MAROON 445

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Not sure why they didnt just go straight to the vote. They are only increasing public scrutiny on themselves. Are there any GOP senator fence sitters really?

Because this is all theatre for the Senators to play to their base and their party hacks.  Once they have successfully solicited and collected additional emergency campaign funds to help keep control of the Senate from the terrible Democrats (wrestle control of the Senate away from the terrible Republicans), then they will vote and Cavanaugh will be confirmed.

 

This is theatre for suckers.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31705

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Longhorn94 said:

but THIS guy shouldnt be discussing the Mueller probe with anyone at Trump's personal attorney's firm. this should have been a simple NO.

 

 

Eh.  I would have to have more information.  That's an insinuation.  Kasowitz has 350 lawyers.  If he was discussing the investigation in a general way with a former law clerk now in the IP section, who gives a fuck.

If he were discussing it with Marc Kasowitz, that's a different deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 33676

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, MAROON said:

Because this is all theatre for the Senators to play to their base and their party hacks.  Once they have successfully solicited and collected additional emergency campaign funds to help keep control of the Senate from the terrible Democrats (wrestle control of the Senate away from the terrible Republicans), then they will vote and Cavanaugh will be confirmed.

 

This is theatre for suckers.

Foreign Agent identified. This is America, it's spelled theater, dammit!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhorn94

Longhorn94 2458

Posted
Posted
Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Eh.  I would have to have more information.  That's an insinuation.  Kasowitz has 350 lawyers.  If he was discussing the investigation in a general way with a former law clerk now in the IP section, who gives a fuck.

If he were discussing it with Marc Kasowitz, that's a different deal.

A Federal District Judge on the DC Circuit that may have to rule on Mueller issues and one on the freaking shortlist of SCt nominees should NOT be discussing anything about the Mueller probe with anyone at the President's personal attorney's firm. It's not proper. Its not ethical. It gives the appearance of impropriety. And he should have been able to recall in a second or less if such a conversation occurred and then answered truthfully.

And I COMPLETELY disagree with you. I thought Senator Harris did an amazing job making this guy squirm and look like an idiot as he tried to avoid perjuring himself. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31705

Posted
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Longhorn94 said:

A Federal District Judge on the DC Circuit that may have to rule on Mueller issues and one on the freaking shortlist of SCt nominees should NOT be discussing anything about the Mueller probe with anyone at the President's personal attorney's firm. It's not proper. Its not ethical. It gives the appearance of impropriety. And he should have been able to recall in a second or less if such a conversation occurred and then answered truthfully.

And I COMPLETELY disagree with you. I thought Senator Harris did an amazing job making this guy squirm and look like an idiot as he tried to avoid perjuring himself. 

I don't disagree that she made him squirm.  But she alluded to something potentially serious and all she got out of it was some squirming.  And a few folks, including apparently jimmyjazz, who has no love for anything Trump, found the squiming to be gratuitous.

He has been a DC Circuit judge, and an adjunct faculty member at Harvard, Georgetown and Yale, all of which might produce opportunities to have casual conversations with students and former students, or law clerks on topics of separation of powers and things related to Mueller..  And it isn't unethical for judges to discuss legal matters off the record that aren't pending before them.

And, again, the substance of the conversation matters, as well as the identity of the participants.  And we got none of it because she decided to showboat.  If she had nothing but an insinuation, then I guess she got what she wanted.

I hate all congressional hearings.  They tend to be nothing but showboating.  And most of the time, anything of substance is drowned out in sound and fury signifying nothing.  This could be Exhibit A demonstrating same.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gap03

Gap03 3350

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Post Oak said:

https:/twitter.com/CoryBooker/status/1037718107543011333

 

Booker's documents

https://www.scribd.com/document/387988906/Booker-Confidential-Kavanaugh-Hearing

 

Anyone had the chance to parse through these docs yet?  I did a quick scan, and it wasn't immediately clear what Booker's angle is here.  Are these supposed to be some sort of smoking gun, or is he just pointing out that it's ridiculous that they're designating docs as "Committee Confidential" that are relevant to the vetting process?  If the latter, not sure that I would be going the "Bring it" route - that sort of approach lends itself to arguments that this is more about theater than substance, especially where the average person will look at the docs and shrug.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31705

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Seems like you're completely discounting the possibility that she has the goods but it was marked Committee Confidential so she's not allowed to directly discuss it. But if Booker is releasing documents you'd think that would be one of them to play into the questioning.

If this is directed to me, I suppose that's possible.  But if she had cut to the chase with "Did you meet with X?"  Yes.  "Did you discuss the Mueller investigation?" Yes.  "What about it did you discuss?"  "What was your understanding about what X would do with this information?"

Those are all questions driving at the substance of this and would not be covered by "committee confidential."  She perhaps could not impeach him with committee confidential documents, in open session, but she could have cut to the chase and did not.

And that is typical of these types of hearings generally.  Reminds me of the SNL skits on the Thomas hearings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhorn94

Longhorn94 2458

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I don't disagree that she made him squirm.  But she alluded to something potentially serious and all she got out of it was some squirming.  And a few folks, including apparently jimmyjazz, who has no love for anything Trump, found the squiming to be gratuitous.

He has been a DC Circuit judge, and an adjunct faculty member at Harvard, Georgetown and Yale, all of which might produce opportunities to have casual conversations with students and former students, or law clerks on topics of separation of powers and things related to Mueller..  And it isn't unethical for judges to discuss legal matters off the record that aren't pending before them.

And, again, the substance of the conversation matters, as well as the identity of the participants.  And we got none of it because she decided to showboat.  If she had nothing but an insinuation, then I guess she got what she wanted.

I hate all congressional hearings.  They tend to be nothing but showboating.  And most of the time, anything of substance is drowned out in sound and fury signifying nothing.

The Mueller investigation has been going on for a little over a year. This guy has been on the shortlist for the Supreme Court since shortly after Trump was elected. So you think it's acceptable for a potential nominee to discuss the Special Counsel's investigation of the President's campaign with someone from the President's personal attorney's firm? And to make matters worse, to pretend you don't know or remember? Come on man, you know better. This is the kind of shit that got us here. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31705

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Longhorn94 said:

The Mueller investigation has been going on for a little over a year. This guy has been on the shortlist for the Supreme Court since shortly after Trump was elected. So you think it's acceptable for a potential nominee to discuss the Special Counsel's investigation of the President's campaign with someone from the President's personal attorney's firm? And to make matters worse, to pretend you don't know or remember? Come on man, you know better. This is the kind of shit that got us here. 

 

I want to know more.  I don't because she showboated and tried to play word games instead of cutting to the chase.

 

Granted she got cut off by partisan assholes, but she could have avoided the whole mess by cutting to the chase instead of posing objectionable questions.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MidTexHorn

MidTexHorn 822

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Gap03 said:

Anyone had the chance to parse through these docs yet?  I did a quick scan, and it wasn't immediately clear what Booker's angle is here.  Are these supposed to be some sort of smoking gun, or is he just pointing out that it's ridiculous that they're designating docs as "Committee Confidential" that are relevant to the vetting process?  If the latter, not sure that I would be going the "Bring it" route - that sort of approach lends itself to arguments that this is more about theater than substance, especially where the average person will look at the docs and shrug.

I just did a quick read through and nothing jumped out at me either. He takes some typically conservative positions regarding racial preferences, but nothing outside the norm of conservative judges that I can see. Maybe that's the point, or maybe the point is in who is copied on the emails but that level of detail is way beyond what I've been paying attention to. Given the drama over this, I was expecting (and hoping for) a blatant smoking gun and I don't see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhorn94

Longhorn94 2458

Posted
Posted
Just now, TwiceHorn said:

I want to know more.  I don't because she showboated and tried to play word games instead of cutting to the chase.

i really don't think she did. i think she was limited by something else. i hope it comes out.

 

this dude is completely compromised. i cant believe this is the guy they put up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 46526

Posted
Posted

Not to speak for Twicehorn, but in my case I didn't see the ambiguity as a sufficient end game.  If her goal was to either get him to perjure himself or make himself look bad by acting without proper discretion, she could have arrived at either result by simply being more precise in her questioning.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31705

Posted
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Not to speak for Twicehorn, but in my case I didn't see the ambiguity as a sufficient end game.  If her goal was to either get him to perjure himself or make himself look bad by acting without proper discretion, she could have arrived at either result by simply being more precise in her questioning.  

Exactly.  As it stands, it seems all she had was innuendo.  Maybe she had more and it's quite possible that the posture of the thing would never have let her get to it.  But she certainly set herself up to get cut off.  All for a moment of cheap theater.

 

I don't deny that such a meeting and conversation could be insidious as hell.  It could also be quite innocent.  I guess we'll never know now.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105701

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, MidTexHorn said:

I just did a quick read through and nothing jumped out at me either. He takes some typically conservative positions regarding racial preferences, but nothing outside the norm of conservative judges that I can see. Maybe that's the point, or maybe the point is in who is copied on the emails but that level of detail is way beyond what I've been paying attention to. Given the drama over this, I was expecting (and hoping for) a blatant smoking gun and I don't see it.

This.  I just skimmed.  Looks like he takes some typical conservative positions, but nothing that made me gasp, shocked, like a Ted Cruz sex-object:

1505236723355-Screen-Shot-2017-09-12-at-

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 28004

Posted
Posted

Huh. Seems like Graham is giving up the ghost on whether or not Trump committed an indictable offense in his line of questioning to Kavanaugh. And interestingly, he's doubling down on not knowing that the break-in happened back in the mid-2000's. And jesus christ, he's going hard on the roe v wade issue and it's making kavanaugh giggly-uncomfortable. "Is there anything in the constitution that says we can't outlaw abortion??" Jesus christ, graham is arguing that the court should be limiting the liberty concept of the constitution? Or am I misunderstanding?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 28004

Posted
Posted

Holy shit, lindsay graham is basically complaining that the supreme court can overrule an unconstitutional law? He dislikes the judicial review of the legislative branch? Or is he angling that stare decisis is too powerful? Either way, he's arguing that our system shouldn't have judicial review. That's fucking astounding. He's just said that it's wrong that a panel of judges can overrule a duly ratified law. And NOW he's invoking 9/11?? Holy fuckballs this is dystopia central

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 33676

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Holy shit, lindsay graham is basically complaining that the supreme court can overrule an unconstitutional law? He dislikes the judicial review of the legislative branch? Or is he angling that stare decisis is too powerful? Either way, he's arguing that our system shouldn't have judicial review. That's fucking astounding. He's just said that it's wrong that a panel of judges can overrule a duly ratified law. And NOW he's invoking 9/11?? Holy fuckballs this is dystopia central

Not watching, but if your summary is even in the ballpark of correct, @Aphelion now has better information on exactly why I included #5 here:

 

Edited by Huckleberry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gap03

Gap03 3350

Posted
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Not watching, but if your summary is even in the ballpark of correct, @Aphelion now has better information on exactly why I included #5 here:

That's where Graham was going.  That was ... something:

 

Edited by Gap03
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31705

Posted
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Holy shit, lindsay graham is basically complaining that the supreme court can overrule an unconstitutional law? He dislikes the judicial review of the legislative branch? Or is he angling that stare decisis is too powerful? Either way, he's arguing that our system shouldn't have judicial review. That's fucking astounding. He's just said that it's wrong that a panel of judges can overrule a duly ratified law. And NOW he's invoking 9/11?? Holy fuckballs this is dystopia central

Not to defend Graham, but I suspect a lot of congress critters resent the judicial review of their legislation.  And probably a goodly portion are too ignorant to understand that it is a fundamental check/balance.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted (edited)

lmao Kavanaugh is a Vince Foster truther

Quote

But shortly after the Senate report was released, Mr. Kavanaugh convinced Mr. Starr to reopen what he called a “full-fledged” investigation of the Foster matter, telling his colleagues, as justification, that “we have received allegations that Mr. Foster’s death related to President and Mrs. Clinton’s involvement” in Whitewater and other alleged scandals.

Who were these unnamed, presumably reliable sources on whose word the case should be reopened? Mr. Kavanaugh’s files in the National Archives make clear that they were some of the most ludicrous hard-right conspiracy-mongers of the time.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/why-was-kavanaugh-obsessed-with-vince-foster.html

Has anyone asked him if he believes Obama is a foreign born Muslim?  His thoughts about what takes place at the back room of Comet Ping Pong?

Edited by Fozzz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 46526

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Not to defend Graham, but I suspect a lot of congress critters resent the judicial review of their legislation.  And probably a goodly portion are too ignorant to understand that it is a fundamental check/balance.

But Graham is an attorney.  I'm pretty sure even USC-East teaches ConLaw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...