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

EMAWesome

EMAWesome 101

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, Mojo Hand said:

That's the exact explanation I'm giving.  She's intentionally doing the hand sign to gaslight people.  Which is extremely reckless and disturbing. 

The only thing extreme about it is that it is extremely entertaining.  The only people who think this is reckless are the same people who think Cory Booker and Kamala Harris have the remotest idea of what they are talking about.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105096

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Aphelion said:

In case it wasn't clear, I was mocking the excessive discussion on the intent & meaning behind some previously unknown lady's thumb and index finger touching.  Who gives a shit what it means.  All this talk about the evils of trolling but none on the fact that we are so easy to troll.  It is also childish behavior to get irate about another's childish antics.  

Well, it CAN be.  But sometimes, calling out childishness is important.  If your non-potty trained kid keeps shitting on my carpet, I'm gonna call it out.  We are being run by a cadre of toddlers, they need to be called out for that shit.  BUT...

1 hour ago, Mole said:

In context, it looks a lot more innocent to me. She appears to be having a conversation via the TV, which is weird I guess, but it looks more like someone saying ok rather than flashing a fake white supremacy sign. I'm not sure what the decorum expectations are for an event like this, but I'm pretty sure that 90% of the people in the room don't have any sense of decorum either. Had she flashed a quick thumbs up instead of ok, would she be accused of being a secret aggy? 

Also this.  Looking at that video, it sure looks like an innocent gesture to me.  And yes, I have been someplace I couldn't just talk or go over and respond (including a courtroom), and instead made eye contact with the person I needed to talk to and both mouthed and signed "OK."  It's not an everyday gesture for me, but sometimes it gets the job done efficiently.

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

After watching the video some of you people are insane.

And this.  Look, she's chickenshit.  And the jury is still out on her first display of the sign. AND, knowing that it was controversial, she was at least sloppy in using it again.  I would studiously avoid using it in public in any context that could be construed that way, so should she.

1 hour ago, Chrispy said:

If you play the video backwards, it’s clear she’s mouthing Helter Skelter. 

Chrispy's a POS, but funny is funny.  I chuckled.

1 hour ago, sachick said:

This. She's supposed to be an intelligent person based on her degrees and she can't figure out that the last thing you should be doing with your hands is making an OK sign. She had another oops? When was the last time anyone used the OK hand sign anyways? It's not that common, if we're having a non-verbal conversation we would just nod our heads.

Again, I use it from time to time, in that clear context.  I can criticize her for being sloppy and mindless about using the sign on global TV when she now KNOWS the connotation and how a crapload of folks might perceive it.  Look, it's kind of like how I avoid using the thumbs-up gesture in certain countries -- I know folks will perceive it to mean something not so nice, so I avoid it.  Because I'm a fucking responsible grown-up.  At this point, all I want is an admin made up of responsible grown-ups.  I ain't getting what I want.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
EMAWesome

EMAWesome 101

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Just a hunch.  A small one, but a hunch.  You probably wouldn't have liked it had someone...oh, say a person of color...sat at a Senate confirmation hearing in the background and flashed gang signs, right?

 

Or would you have found the humor in that?

One thing I know I wouldn't do is overanalyze it like I am a baseball manager trying to figure out the other team's third base coach's signs.  Now I want some guy in the background to scratch his balls so the 500 Buck Showalters in this thread can tell me what it is supposed to mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
babysdaddy

babysdaddy 2721

Posted
Posted

Thanks for the video Art.  What I find most discouraging is some people are watching that and still concluding it was a purposeful and intentional white power signal. And LOL Hugo at warning against tactics of that group after someone (maybe you) posted the super slomo video of her hand signal that was clearly misleading.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

One thing I know I wouldn't do is overanalyze it like I am a baseball manager trying to figure out the other team's third base coach's signs.  Now I want some guy in the background to scratch his balls so the 500 Buck Showalters in this thread can tell me what it is supposed to mean.

Crabs........ or so I've been told By a friend.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
suddenly shaggy

suddenly shaggy 929

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

One thing I know I wouldn't do is overanalyze it like I am a baseball manager trying to figure out the other team's third base coach's signs.  Now I want some guy in the background to scratch his balls so the 500 Buck Showalters in this thread can tell me what it is supposed to mean.

It means they are Eskimo Brothers with Donald Trump and both caught the same crabs. 

Edited by suddenly shaggy
goddamn it onboard just beat me to it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45900

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, babysdaddy said:

You pushed it and you were wrong.  What you should say is 'sorry I got you guys all riled up which distracted from the confirmation hearing.  So did you guys see Brett perjured himself?'  

I get that you somehow see that video as proof her two identical hand signs two days in a row weren't intentional.  I don't know how a smart person comes to that conclusion, but what the fuck ever.  You're wrong.  It was intentional.

What I can get on board with is that it's also irrelevant.  In the grand scheme of shit going on, this is somewhere below whale shit.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
babysdaddy

babysdaddy 2721

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I get that you somehow see that video as proof her two identical hand signs two days in a row weren't intentional.  I don't know how a smart person comes to that conclusion, but what the fuck ever.  You're wrong.  It was intentional.

What I can get on board with is that it's also irrelevant.  In the grand scheme of shit going on, this is somewhere below whale shit.

 

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Wrong about what?

Look, the video, which I asked for earlier to provide context to the super slow mo video, clearly shows she was having a text conversation with someone else in the room and she was saying "ok" to something that was just sent to her.  I can't help you guys see what is right in front of your face.  I don't know how a smart person can come to any other conclusion other than that, but what the fuck ever.  You're wrong, it was not intentional in the way you want it to be.  Even Brisket said so above.  I know you guys trust him since he's been apoplectic about everything the past 2 years

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steamboat1874

Steamboat1874 4056

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

 

Look, the video, which I asked for earlier to provide context to the super slow mo video, clearly shows she was having a text conversation with someone else in the room and she was saying "ok" to something that was just sent to her.  I can't help you guys see what is right in front of your face.  I don't know how a smart person can come to any other conclusion other than that, but what the fuck ever.  You're wrong, it was not intentional in the way you want it to be.  Even Brisket said so above.  I know you guys trust him since he's been apoplectic about everything the past 2 years

So you know for a fact she was texting someone in the room and instead of sending an "OK" via text she gave a hand signal...?

Yeah right.

You have to be an idiot to believe that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
realgreggym

realgreggym 835

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:
2 hours ago, realgreggym said:
I bet that 98% of libs had no clue who this woman was, her background and in a couple of days this will all be forgotten because you libs will move on to the next big deal. I doubt its a long term loss because other than some libs, no one else cares.
Its like vegans threatening to boycott Burger Doodle because they sell burgers.

It will be one more example in a list of thousands from this administration that they and their supporters are perfectly comfortable lying and misrepresenting out of sheer habit. In this case because...???...lib tears??? They've flushed their credibility down the toilet and that shot credibility will last the rest of our lifetimes. Another wise conservative investment.

We learned well from the Clintons and Obama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mole

Mole 4330

Posted
Posted (edited)

I'll ask the perjury thing again. Someone connect the dots like I'm 5 years old. All I've seen is an implication and wink, wink, nudge, nudge. If he lied we should have both a clear statement of the lie from him (an actual quote) and clear evidence demonstrating that it (his actual quote) is a lie. There's no ulterior motive here; I just want to see it clearly demonstrated. This is much more important than fake white power signs or another pointless abortion debate.

Edited by Mole
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hank Scorpio

Hank Scorpio 17729

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Mole said:

I'll ask the perjury thing again. Someone connect the dots like I'm 5 years old. All I've seen is an implication and wink, wink, nudge, nudge. If he lied we should have both a clear statement of the lie from him (an actual quote) and clear evidence demonstrating that it (his actual quote) is a lie. There's no ulterior motive here; I just want to see it clearly demonstrated. This is much more important than fake white power signs or another pointless abortion debate.

Everyone! Gather round! The "I'm just asking questions" guy has arrived! He demands proof! Who will have the courage to answer his riddles?! Step right up! 

  • Like 5
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shnsajax

shnsajax 3591

Posted
Posted
So are the hearings concluded?  Did we ever find out how someone they think is qualified to interpret the Constitution can be dumb enough to go into deep debt by buying baseball tickets?


If they are cool with him lying under oath I doubt they give a shit about debt that a PAC will just payoff for him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

Everyone! Gather round! The "I'm just asking questions" guy has arrived! He demands proof! Who will have the courage to answer his riddles?! Step right up! 

I can't believe someone would have the audacity to ask questions relevant to the subject discussion.  What we need more of are links to twitter posts, the restatement of accusations with full certainty, and more discussion on hand signs.  All this feigned inquiry and attempted dialogue needs to be smothered immediately.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bama Chick

Bama Chick 28596

Posted
Posted

Dudes talking about abortions - my most favorite thing!

And I have a 16 year old daughter. I hope like hell abortion remains legal and safe and accessible for her if, god forbid, she should ever be in a position to need to make that choice.

I’m 46 years old and could still biologically get pregnant. But I currently have a medical condition and take a medication that if I did accidentally get pregnant, I would have to have an abortion. In my situation, the pregnancy would self abort around 15-16 weeks and could kill me.

If I were to get pregnant, I would have to go to Birmingham because all the local clinics - of which there will only two - have been closed down because of shitty restrictive state laws.

But please keep trying to shame me about why I’m pro-choice. It won’t work.

On topic - Kavanaugh suuuuuuuucks.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
yoladu

yoladu 4093

Posted
Posted
52 minutes ago, Mole said:

I'll ask the perjury thing again. Someone connect the dots like I'm 5 years old. All I've seen is an implication and wink, wink, nudge, nudge. If he lied we should have both a clear statement of the lie from him (an actual quote) and clear evidence demonstrating that it (his actual quote) is a lie. There's no ulterior motive here; I just want to see it clearly demonstrated. This is much more important than fake white power signs or another pointless abortion debate.

This is the best summary i have found.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/newly-released-emails-show-brett-kavanaugh-may-have-perjured-himself-at-least-four-times

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31451

Posted
Posted
Just now, yoladu said:

This is the best summary i have found.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/newly-released-emails-show-brett-kavanaugh-may-have-perjured-himself-at-least-four-times

 

And from where we sit now, the operative term is "may have."  The worst looking one is the warrantless wiretap thing.  As probably best exhibited by the Clinton investigation way back when, proof of perjury to any legal standard is difficult.  You see stuff like this in your average civil case about a half-dozen times (your client is sending you notes "he's lying!  It's perjury!  can't we do something!!!111!!).  Is it lying?  Is it bad recollection shaded favorably either intentionally or subconsciously?  I don't know.  Probably a bit of all of it.

We tell our clients not to review documents in a lot of cases unless they really need help remembering what happened in a critical aspect of the case.  We do it for them, looking for contradictions.

If more emails come out that contradict him, that may change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
yoladu

yoladu 4093

Posted
Posted

Kavanaugh has not impressed.

Gorsuch? i mean, who knows. He seems like a ghost.

Even Garland. Yeah, we never really got a chance to impress, but he is not exactly an inspiring guy.

is this the best we have? Uninspiring dopey white guys who seem to have limited world views.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31451

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, yoladu said:

Kavanaugh has not impressed.

Gorsuch? i mean, who knows. He seems like a ghost.

Even Garland. Yeah, we never really got a chance to impress, but he is not exactly an inspiring guy.

is this the best we have? Uninspiring dopey white guys who seem to have limited world views.

That's really kind of par for the course most of the history of the country.  As Dennison notes, we need to stop with the Ivy turds, there are good to great law schools across the country.  And these career government lawyers are the worst.  While that is kind of a specialty and takes some talent, it doesn't really resemble the practice of law or the issues confronting Americans on a daily basis at all.  Even worse, most of these folks have no perspective other than a governmental one.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13582

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

And from where we sit now, the operative term is "may have."  The worst looking one is the warrantless wiretap thing.  As probably best exhibited by the Clinton investigation way back when, proof of perjury to any legal standard is difficult.  You see stuff like this in your average civil case about a half-dozen times (your client is sending you notes "he's lying!  It's perjury!  can't we do something!!!111!!).  Is it lying?  Is it bad recollection shaded favorably either intentionally or subconsciously?  I don't know.  Probably a bit of all of it.

We tell our clients not to review documents in a lot of cases unless they really need help remembering what happened in a critical aspect of the case.  We do it for them, looking for contradictions.

If more emails come out that contradict him, that may change.

This isn't an investigation or civil case though. This is a SC nominee hearing coming on the heels of the GOP ignoring the Constitution to deny Obama's rightful choice in which 90 percent of his resume is being hidden for some unknown reason for a potential justice that might be the deciding vote in any upcoming legal proceedings against the president who nominated him. You'd think it wouldn't be too much to ask that prior vetting could prevent even the appearance of K getting through this without wondering if we just witnessed a perjury-fest. Nope. That as well is too much to ask.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105096

Posted
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That's really kind of par for the course most of the history of the country.  As Dennison notes, we need to stop with the Ivy turds, there are good to great law schools across the country.  And these career government lawyers are the worst.  While that is kind of a specialty and takes some talent, it doesn't really resemble the practice of law or the issues confronting Americans on a daily basis at all.  Even worse, most of these folks have no perspective other than a governmental one.

A thousand times this.

My kingdom for a SCOTUS nominee with some real-world, local level in the trenches trial experience.  Having been out in the real world, with real people, informs the shit outta your legal perspective.  Because what a shitload of people don't think about is that the SCOTUS rules on an ass-ton of cases that aren't sexy or high profile, but really matter and make a difference in people's lives, and it would be nice to have human justices making those decisions.

I am friendly with a Federal Appellate Judge.  I bumped into him one time, and he was excited about a dissent he'd written in a pretty important case (from a workaday, how it affects a certain broad business sector sort of way), and told me I should read it.  He seemed really proud of himself and his work.  And he should have been -- it was very well-written, clever, and thoughtful.  It was also totally clueless about how this shit worked in the actual, real world.  It was pure academic gobbldygook, but well-written gobbldygook.  The problem is, he'd never tried a case in his life.  He'd been a government lawyer/policy wonk etc. for effectively his entire career, and it showed.

That's really the funny thing.  We have THREE branches of government.  They are generally run by a cabal of insiders.  In an admin screaming DRAIN THE SWAMP.....he nominates.....another ordinary swamp critter.  There's nothing new about Kavanaugh in that respect -- oh, another SCOTUS judge plucked from the DC Circuit.  How original of you.

Edited by Brisketexan
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31451

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

This isn't an investigation or civil case though. This is a SC nominee hearing coming on the heels of the GOP ignoring the Constitution to deny Obama's rightful choice in which 90 percent of his resume is being hidden for some unknown reason for a potential justice that might be the deciding vote in any upcoming legal proceedings against the president who nominated him. You'd think it wouldn't be too much to ask that prior vetting could prevent even the appearance of K getting through this without wondering if we just witnessed a perjury-fest. Nope. That as well is too much to ask.  

And we know the nomination is going to be confirmed. 

So if anything is ever going to come of this, stricter proof of perjury is going to be required.

Otherwise it's just partisan poo-flinging.  The fact that one party is morally bankrupt doesn't elevate the other party's bitching above poo-flinging, absent some stronger proof.

Edited by TwiceHorn
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...