Jump to content

Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Thread

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

GHOSTUSER

GHOSTUSER 361

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I have a pretty strong connection to my Persian side, considering both of my parents (including my Irish Hobbit mom) are Baha'is. My father's family has felt the devastating effects of persecution. And the Baha'i teachings stressed men and women are equal. 

Luckily I grew up hearing stuff like this:

"The world of humanity is possessed of two wings: the male and the female. So long as these two wings are not equivalent in strength, the bird will not fly. Until womankind reaches the same degree as man, until she enjoys the same arena of activity, extraordinary attainment for humanity will not be realized; humanity cannot wing its way to heights of real attainment. When the two wings or parts become equivalent in strength, enjoying the same prerogatives, the flight of man will be exceedingly lofty and extraordinary." - Abdu'l-Baha

 

 

Nice quote pos rep. I’m all for women’s advancement. My greatest heroes ripped hijab off women’s heads to help them modernize. I don’t believe in false accusations against an accomplished man 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 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

GHOSTUSER

GHOSTUSER 361

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, FondrenRoad said:

Economy sucks in the rust belt though. CA, NY, and TX booming dont move the needle for them. The economy was booming in 2016 too. Trump recognized that swing state small towns were still having a rough go of it. He promised them the world and hasnt delivered it. In fact, like in 2016, the economic separation they see when you eat cake claiming everything is grand while they eat shit is still a primary reason they vote the way they do.  Their lives havent changed for the better.  Now Trump is on the other side of the equation. Those voters are primed for an actual socialist candidate. 

You’re forgetting his accomplishments in reforming NAFTA into the new USMCA and seeking to bring back high paying manufacturing jobs through the stick of using tariffs. If you don’t think Trump has earned cred and appreciation from rust belt voters on those fronts I don’t know what to tell you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18924

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

You’re forgetting his accomplishments in reforming NAFTA into the new USMCA and seeking to bring back high paying manufacturing jobs through the stick of using tariffs. If you don’t think Trump has earned cred and appreciation from rust belt voters on those fronts I don’t know what to tell you.

He didn't reform NAFTA. Moreover, he can't reform anything on his own. Also, tariffs will not bring back high paying manufacturing jobs. They will just make imported goods more expensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GHOSTUSER

GHOSTUSER 361

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

He didn't reform NAFTA. Moreover, he can't reform anything on his own. Also, tariffs will not bring back high paying manufacturing jobs. They will just make imported goods more expensive.

To the minds of the voter there he tried to do something for them and that’s all that’s needed to gain their vote 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bat Guano

Bat Guano 359

Posted
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, A Cellar Honker said:

I have a different take on Occam’s razor.  The most direct interpretation is that a corrupt government acts corruptly.

OK. What does that have to do with the truth or falsity of Dr. Ford's statements?

Edit: Granted that the Ds used Dr. Ford for their own purposes, to their own perceived partisan advantage; that is what political parties do, and I agree that both major parties are about as corrupt as it is possible for them to be. What I don't see is how this impacts the basic facts of the case: either she is telling the truth or she is lying. The peripherals about how her lawyers and the Ds on the Judiciary handled things subsequently are just that, peripheral.

 

Edited by Bat Guano
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sheeeit

sheeeit 129

Posted
Posted
21 hours ago, EMAWesome said:

The Republicans were just playing by the rules Joe Biden wrote when he was in the Senate in 1988.

The "Biden" rule was not actually a rule or any piece of legislation.  It was just his thoughts on the subject.  

However, it was the Dems under Harry Reid in 2013 that changed the rules of the senate that have us where we are now.  Republicans, at the time, warned that the shoe would be on the other foot at some point and Reid, to his credit, admitted that the Republicans would and should be able to do the same thing if and when they came to a majority.  The change was basically an end to the filibuster rule where 41 dissenting votes could tie up nominations indefinitely.  There is no question the repubs were using the rule to slow down Obama nominations in 2013 but the dems, via Reid, had the majority and voted for the change to the rule.  I actually think it is a good change.

People keep forgetting about Gorsuch (side note: it is amazing how people can not even remember things from a year ago) and what the dems were doing.  Everyone keeps saying that the dems did not try and sink Gorsuch which is patently false.  The dems got 41 senators to oppose the nomination which set up a filibuster opportunity.  They told McConnel they were going to filibuster.  As a result, McConnel did the exact same as Reid in 2013 and changed Senate rules to avoid a filibuster.  The shoe was on the other foot a lot sooner than Reid hoped.

As for Garland, we can debate whether he should have been up for a vote or not forever and not agree.  But, what is not debatable is that the repubs used the actual rules of the senate to their advantage.  What they did was not new either and it had been done before.  IMO, the dems and  Obama should have formally nominated him and forced the repubs to a vote.  They could have used that politically.  They did not do it because they assumed Hillary would win.  But the repubs used the laws as written to their advantage just like every party does when in the majority.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
A Cellar Honker

A Cellar Honker 19

Posted
Posted

“I believe her!”

Really? Why should anyone believe her?

Senator Collins of Maine said she believed that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford experienced somethingtraumatic, just not at the hands of Mr. Kavanaugh. I believe Senator Collins said that to placate the #Metoo mob, not because she actually believed it. I believe Christine Blasey Ford was lying, through and through, in her injured little girl voice, like a bad imitation of Truman Capote.

I believe that the Christine Blasey Ford gambit was an extension of the sinister activities underway since early 2016 in the Department of Justice and the FBI to un-do the last presidential election, and that the real and truthful story about these seditious monkeyshines is going to blow wide open.

It turns out that the Deep State is a small world. Did you know that the lawyer sitting next to Dr. Ford in the Senate hearings, one Michael Bromwich, is also an attorney for Andrew McCabe, the former FBI Deputy Director fired for lying to investigators from his own agency and currently singing to a grand jury? What a coincidence. Out of all the lawyers in the most lawyer-infested corner of the USA, she just happened to hook up with him.

It’s a matter of record that Dr. Ford traveled to Rehobeth Beach Delaware on July 26, where her Best Friend Forever and former room-mate, Monica McLean, lives, and that she spent the next four days there before sending a letter July 30 to Senator Diane Feinstein that kicked off the “sexual assault” circus. Did you know that Monica McClean was a retired FBI special agent, and that she worked in the US Attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York under Preet Bharara, who had earlier worked for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer?

Could Monica McLean have spent those four days in July helping Christine Blasey Ford compose her letter to Mrs. Feinstein? Did you know that Monica McClean’s lawyer, one David Laufman is a former DOJ top lawyer who assisted former FBI counter-intel chief Peter Strozk on both the Clinton and Russia investigations before resigning in February this year — in fact, he sat in on the notorious “unsworn” interview with Hillary in 2016. Wow! What a really small swamp Washington is!

Did you know that Ms. Leland Keyser, Dr. Ford’s previous BFF from back in the Holton Arms prep school, told the final round of FBI investigators in the Kavanaugh hearing last week — as reported by the The Wall Street Journal — that she “felt pressured” by Monica McLean and her representatives to change her story — that she knew nothing about the alleged sexual assault, or the alleged party where it allegedly happened, or that she ever knew Mr. Kavanaugh. I think that’s called suborning perjury.

None of this is trivial and the matter can’t possibly rest there. Too much of it has been unraveled by what remains of the news media. And meanwhile, of course, there is at least one grand jury listening to testimony from the whole cast-of-characters behind the botched Hillary investigation and Robert Mueller’s ever more dubious-looking Russian collusion inquiry: the aforementioned Strozk, Lisa Page, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Bill Priestap, et. al. I have a feeling that these matters are now approaching critical mass with the parallel unraveling of the Christine Blasey Ford “story.”

The Democratic Party has its fingerprints all over this, as it does with the shenanigans over the Russia investigation. Not only do I not believe Dr. Ford’s story; I also don’t believe she acted on her own in this shady business. What’s happening with all these FBI and DOJ associated lawyers is an obvious circling of the wagons. They’ve generated too much animus in the process and they’re going to get nailed. These matters are far from over and a major battle is looming in the countdown to the midterm elections. In fact, op-ed writer Charles M. Blow sounded the trumpet Monday morning in his idiotic column titled: Liberals, This is War. Like I’ve been saying: Civil War Two.

http://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/aftermath-as-prologue/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Asithappens

Asithappens 974

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, A Cellar Honker said:

“I believe her!”

Really? Why should anyone believe her?

1. Sexual assault is kind of common with young girls.

2. She appeared to be a quite credible witness.

I can see why one may not believe her, but to ask why anyone would believe her is just trolling, imo.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sheeeit

sheeeit 129

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

Economy sucks in the rust belt though. CA, NY, and TX booming dont move the needle for them. The economy was booming in 2016 too. Trump recognized that swing state small towns were still having a rough go of it. He promised them the world and hasnt delivered it. In fact, like in 2016, the economic separation they see when you eat cake claiming everything is grand while they eat shit is still a primary reason they vote the way they do.  Their lives havent changed for the better.  Now Trump is on the other side of the equation. Those voters are primed for an actual socialist candidate. 

This just is not true on any level.  The economic optimism in the rust belt states is overwhelmingly high. 

https://www.moodyonthemarket.com/pnc-economic-outlook-pushes-michigan-business-optimism-to-record-high-levels/

https://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2018/06/27/optimism-among-wmc-membership-remains-high-amid.html

https://columbusregion.com/news-events/ohio-economic-outlook-optimism-time-high-pnc-employer-survey-columbus-business-first/

http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/story/37989005/report-ranks-indiana-high-for-economic-outlook

That is every state in the "rust" belt except for Illinois and all of them have consumer confidence/business confidence or whatever you want to call it at all time highs.  There biggest issue is a labor shortage which is the biggest driver for increased wages.  But the exact type of jobs, manufacturing primarily, that these states were told were never coming back are, in fact, coming back.  The blue collar worker in the rust belt is having a better time today than any in the last 20 years.

It is also telling that Illinois is the only rust belt state that is still in uncertain mode.  

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

This just is not true on any level.  The economic optimism in the rust belt states is overwhelmingly high. 

https://www.moodyonthemarket.com/pnc-economic-outlook-pushes-michigan-business-optimism-to-record-high-levels/

https://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2018/06/27/optimism-among-wmc-membership-remains-high-amid.html

https://columbusregion.com/news-events/ohio-economic-outlook-optimism-time-high-pnc-employer-survey-columbus-business-first/

http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/story/37989005/report-ranks-indiana-high-for-economic-outlook

That is every state in the "rust" belt except for Illinois and all of them have consumer confidence/business confidence or whatever you want to call it at all time highs.  There biggest issue is a labor shortage which is the biggest driver for increased wages.  But the exact type of jobs, manufacturing primarily, that these states were told were never coming back are, in fact, coming back.  The blue collar worker in the rust belt is having a better time today than any in the last 20 years.

It is also telling that Illinois is the only rust belt state that is still in uncertain mode.  

Well you know how a democrat run state is (not that there are many of them). They want to control the means of production.  It keeps people under their fat thumbs.

  • Like 2
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

This just is not true on any level.  The economic optimism in the rust belt states is overwhelmingly high. 

https://www.moodyonthemarket.com/pnc-economic-outlook-pushes-michigan-business-optimism-to-record-high-levels/

https://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2018/06/27/optimism-among-wmc-membership-remains-high-amid.html

https://columbusregion.com/news-events/ohio-economic-outlook-optimism-time-high-pnc-employer-survey-columbus-business-first/

http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/story/37989005/report-ranks-indiana-high-for-economic-outlook

That is every state in the "rust" belt except for Illinois and all of them have consumer confidence/business confidence or whatever you want to call it at all time highs.  There biggest issue is a labor shortage which is the biggest driver for increased wages.  But the exact type of jobs, manufacturing primarily, that these states were told were never coming back are, in fact, coming back.  The blue collar worker in the rust belt is having a better time today than any in the last 20 years.

It is also telling that Illinois is the only rust belt state that is still in uncertain mode.  

That's all about cities, slugger.   They want the factory in their small town, not Columbus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18924

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

This just is not true on any level.  The economic optimism in the rust belt states is overwhelmingly high. 

https://www.moodyonthemarket.com/pnc-economic-outlook-pushes-michigan-business-optimism-to-record-high-levels/

https://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2018/06/27/optimism-among-wmc-membership-remains-high-amid.html

https://columbusregion.com/news-events/ohio-economic-outlook-optimism-time-high-pnc-employer-survey-columbus-business-first/

http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/story/37989005/report-ranks-indiana-high-for-economic-outlook

That is every state in the "rust" belt except for Illinois and all of them have consumer confidence/business confidence or whatever you want to call it at all time highs.  There biggest issue is a labor shortage which is the biggest driver for increased wages.  But the exact type of jobs, manufacturing primarily, that these states were told were never coming back are, in fact, coming back.  The blue collar worker in the rust belt is having a better time today than any in the last 20 years.

It is also telling that Illinois is the only rust belt state that is still in uncertain mode.  

Those jobs are never coming back.

Edited by David Dennison
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sheeeit

sheeeit 129

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

LO-Fucking-L

Heal thyself.

And do a little research into R vs D stalls on judicial nominees.  Damn, man.  Sheeeit.

You get dumber every day.  In a post where I point out how republicans specifically stalled Obama candidates you ask me about repubs stalling candidates.  

The point, you dolt, is that there are lots and lots of posts on this thread about how the dems did not obstruct Gorsuch.  They fully intended to and said as much publicly.  I have no problem with them using the rules in the senate as they exist.  But they were going to filibuster Gorsuch and the repubs used the same tactic that Reid used to get around the filibuster rule.  My post made zero points about which party obstructs the other more often or more forcefully.  You just can not help yourself.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45979

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, sheeeit said:

You get dumber every day.  In a post where I point out how republicans specifically stalled Obama candidates you ask me about repubs stalling candidates.  

The point, you dolt, is that there are lots and lots of posts on this thread about how the dems did not obstruct Gorsuch.  They fully intended to and said as much publicly.  I have no problem with them using the rules in the senate as they exist.  But they were going to filibuster Gorsuch and the repubs used the same tactic that Reid used to get around the filibuster rule.  My post made zero points about which party obstructs the other more often or more forcefully.  You just can not help yourself.

Look into the numbers you fucking imbecile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sheeeit

sheeeit 129

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Look into the numbers you fucking imbecile.

I wont reply again because it just isnt worth it but this latest post is perfect for you.  I make a post that includes a point that republicans were stalling Obama candidates.  You make a reply to tell me that the mean republicans obstruct nominees more than the dems.  I reply that that may very well be true but it was not anything at all that I was arguing in my post and that it is irrelevant to the points I was making.  You reply "look into the numbers you fucking imbecile".  That is fantastic.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45979

Posted
Posted

The main point of my original post was related to your deliciously sheeeit comment regarding short memories.  My final statement was imploring you to actually look into the "both sides" (stall and resist) on judicial nominations, but you're so fucking cocksure of what I was hinting at that you're gonna go down with the ship on it.  Classic sheeeit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sheeeit

sheeeit 129

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

That's all about cities, slugger.   They want the factory in their small town, not Columbus.

Gee lets call someone slugger to try and trivialize them so people wont realize how dumb of a post I made.

People can judge for themselves I suppose.  We have Fondren's word based on........versus the actual data from the agencies that have been tracking economic optimism for the state for decades under both parties.  It is ok to admit you made a mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18924

Posted
Posted
Just now, sheeeit said:

Gee lets call someone slugger to try and trivialize them so people wont realize how dumb of a post I made.

People can judge for themselves I suppose.  We have Fondren's word based on........versus the actual data from the agencies that have been tracking economic optimism for the state for decades under both parties.  It is ok to admit you made a mistake.

Which manufacturing jobs are going back? Actual numbers would be great, not feelings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Gee lets call someone slugger to try and trivialize them so people wont realize how dumb of a post I made.

People can judge for themselves I suppose.  We have Fondren's word based on........versus the actual data from the agencies that have been tracking economic optimism for the state for decades under both parties.  It is ok to admit you made a mistake.

Whatever you say, big guy. Move to small town Indiana and get a job then. Put your life where your mouth is.

Edited by FondrenRoad
Link to comment
Share on other sites
seven

seven 1367

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Well you know how a democrat run state is (not that there are many of them). They want to control the means of production.  It keeps people under their fat thumbs.

Name a single us state that wants to control the means of production. This is stupid even for a brainless moron like yourself 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26494

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Well you know how a democrat run state is (not that there are many of them). They want to control the means of production.  It keeps people under their fat thumbs.

Day drinking Kentucky Deluxe while listening to patriot shortwave streams is no way to go through life, Onboard. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted

Brett Kavanaugh - follow the money. 

 

Any subsequent Congressional Judiciary investigation into BK necessarily will look directly at this.  These questions were NOT pursued by R's on SJC.  They WERE forwarded to BK.  Documentation does not support his vague and uncooperative responses.

See the linked thread for imaged documentation:

 

1/ In 2006, Brett & Ashley Kavanaugh bought a house for $1.22m. They put $245k down, a number that does not appear on his financial disclosures of 2005, which show net worth of $91k.

2/ The mortgage payments ($4600/mo.) alone were more than what Brett Kavanaugh took home in 2006 after taxes. His wife did not add enough to the mix to make up the difference.

3/ Even in the go-go mid-2000s, at height of RE bubble, why would any bank with a functional abacus approve such a terrible loan? And why would Brett and Ashley Kavanaugh agree to it?

4/ Within a year of buying the house, the family was deep in credit card debt. By the end of 2006, Brett and Ashley Kavanaugh owed five financial institutions, combined, a cool MILLION dollars.

5/ How did the Kavanaugh family manage to navigate this financial tightrope without going broke? Maybe his parents floated him. So let’s assume that Everett Edward Kavanaugh, Jr. had an “in” at the bank, and managed to secure the loan.

6/ That Daddy Kavanaugh not only generated the down payment, and also sprung for all of the mortgage payments, leaving Brett and Ashley to cover everything else.

7/ Even THEN, Brett Kavanaugh’s take-home pay in 2006 — he wasn’t sworn in as a federal judge until June of that year — was not enough to cover his young family’s cost of living in Chevy Chase, Maryland.

8/ If Kavanaugh did receive such significant assistance from his parents, why was he not forthright about their largesse? Surely there is no shame in accepting family help.

9/ Did Kavanaugh, like Trump, seek to present a false narrative about the nature of his own wealth? Was he concerned about the tax implications? Or is there a more sinister explanation?

10/ Rumors of Kavanaugh’s gambling are rampant enough that he was asked about them repeatedly by the Senate Judiciary Committee. He denied it, of course. I have no proof he wasn't truthful in this response.

11/ It is certainly possible to obtain $245,000 by, say, betting $25,000 on some outcome at 10-to-1 odds, and winning the wager. The transaction would be anonymous, and the payout could very well be made in cash.

12/ Let me be clear: I have no idea whether or not Kavanaugh bets on sporting events. I have no proof one way or the other. It is more likely, in fact, that his income was subsidized by his wealthy parents than by betting big on his beloved Washington Nationals.

13/ But given: 1) the sudden infusion of a quarter mil to buy his house, 2) the wild ebbs and flows of his finances for the last decade, 3) the odd story about his purchasing baseball tickets for “old friends,” 4) his oft-stated love of sports, 5) his propensity to lie...

14/ 6) his apparent comfort level with political dark money, and even 7) the permissive stance of the American Catholic Church on certain forms of gambling (i.e., bingo), I will say this:

15/ In the absence of proof of his family’s aid with Kavanaugh's $245,000 down payment, a big gambling windfall cannot be ruled out as a possibility.

16/ Conversely, gambling losses to underworld bookmakers may require a sudden and urgent infusion of cash. A way to accumulate ready cash is to front a large purchase for a group of friends, charge the purchase to credit cards, & then collect the reimbursements in cash or check.

17/ Which is exactly what Kavanaugh admits he did, by being the purchaser of Nationals tickets for his buddies.

18/ Let me reiterate: I have no way of knowing if Kavanaugh is a high-stakes gambler, and I’m not accusing him of being one. I really hope he's not, and that we don't have a SCOTUS judge who cavorts with bookies.

19/ However, if Kavanaugh was telling the truth about not ever gambling, he needs to explain how he managed to come up with $245,000 to pay for his house in 2006, and also, how his massive credit card debt suddenly vanished ten years later.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lagunamadre

Lagunamadre 1975

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Brett Kavanaugh - follow the money. 

 

Any subsequent Congressional Judiciary investigation into BK necessarily will look directly at this.  These questions were NOT pursued by R's on SJC.  They WERE forwarded to BK.  Documentation does not support his vague and uncooperative responses.

See the linked thread for imaged documentation:

 

1/ In 2006, Brett & Ashley Kavanaugh bought a house for $1.22m. They put $245k down, a number that does not appear on his financial disclosures of 2005, which show net worth of $91k.

2/ The mortgage payments ($4600/mo.) alone were more than what Brett Kavanaugh took home in 2006 after taxes. His wife did not add enough to the mix to make up the difference.

3/ Even in the go-go mid-2000s, at height of RE bubble, why would any bank with a functional abacus approve such a terrible loan? And why would Brett and Ashley Kavanaugh agree to it?

4/ Within a year of buying the house, the family was deep in credit card debt. By the end of 2006, Brett and Ashley Kavanaugh owed five financial institutions, combined, a cool MILLION dollars.

5/ How did the Kavanaugh family manage to navigate this financial tightrope without going broke? Maybe his parents floated him. So let’s assume that Everett Edward Kavanaugh, Jr. had an “in” at the bank, and managed to secure the loan.

6/ That Daddy Kavanaugh not only generated the down payment, and also sprung for all of the mortgage payments, leaving Brett and Ashley to cover everything else.

7/ Even THEN, Brett Kavanaugh’s take-home pay in 2006 — he wasn’t sworn in as a federal judge until June of that year — was not enough to cover his young family’s cost of living in Chevy Chase, Maryland.

8/ If Kavanaugh did receive such significant assistance from his parents, why was he not forthright about their largesse? Surely there is no shame in accepting family help.

9/ Did Kavanaugh, like Trump, seek to present a false narrative about the nature of his own wealth? Was he concerned about the tax implications? Or is there a more sinister explanation?

10/ Rumors of Kavanaugh’s gambling are rampant enough that he was asked about them repeatedly by the Senate Judiciary Committee. He denied it, of course. I have no proof he wasn't truthful in this response.

11/ It is certainly possible to obtain $245,000 by, say, betting $25,000 on some outcome at 10-to-1 odds, and winning the wager. The transaction would be anonymous, and the payout could very well be made in cash.

12/ Let me be clear: I have no idea whether or not Kavanaugh bets on sporting events. I have no proof one way or the other. It is more likely, in fact, that his income was subsidized by his wealthy parents than by betting big on his beloved Washington Nationals.

13/ But given: 1) the sudden infusion of a quarter mil to buy his house, 2) the wild ebbs and flows of his finances for the last decade, 3) the odd story about his purchasing baseball tickets for “old friends,” 4) his oft-stated love of sports, 5) his propensity to lie...

14/ 6) his apparent comfort level with political dark money, and even 7) the permissive stance of the American Catholic Church on certain forms of gambling (i.e., bingo), I will say this:

15/ In the absence of proof of his family’s aid with Kavanaugh's $245,000 down payment, a big gambling windfall cannot be ruled out as a possibility.

16/ Conversely, gambling losses to underworld bookmakers may require a sudden and urgent infusion of cash. A way to accumulate ready cash is to front a large purchase for a group of friends, charge the purchase to credit cards, & then collect the reimbursements in cash or check.

17/ Which is exactly what Kavanaugh admits he did, by being the purchaser of Nationals tickets for his buddies.

18/ Let me reiterate: I have no way of knowing if Kavanaugh is a high-stakes gambler, and I’m not accusing him of being one. I really hope he's not, and that we don't have a SCOTUS judge who cavorts with bookies.

19/ However, if Kavanaugh was telling the truth about not ever gambling, he needs to explain how he managed to come up with $245,000 to pay for his house in 2006, and also, how his massive credit card debt suddenly vanished ten years later.

 

 

I think it's time to move on from this one. I think it's terrible that BK was confirmed and thought it would have been better for all sides had they just replaced his nomination with anyone else from their list, but that did not happen. 

Impeaching a Supreme Court Justice is a TERRIBLE look for our country and on the political side of things would have terrible consequences for Democrats, while the impeachment fight itself would only do more damage to the reputation of the court in a time where, as a country, we can't afford any more erosion in confidence in our institutions. 

At the end of the day, elections have MAJOR consequences. Take all of the "impeach Kavanaugh" energy and channel into voting, getting your friends to vote and campaigning. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
phdhorn

phdhorn 6224

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I am just disappointed that there isn't a Russia! connection yet. 

Oh honey, sure there's been.  That's even old news.  From this past July.  Remember this?:

https://freebeacon.com/blog/media-trump-and-kennedy-colluded-with-russia-to-pick-kavanaugh/

Media: Trump and Kennedy Colluded (with Russia?) to Pick Kavanaugh

BY: Alex Griswold

July 10, 2018 1:41 pm

I hope you're are buckled in, because I'm about to blow your f***ing minds.

1. President Donald Trump colluded with Anthony Kennedy to nominate Brett Kavanaugh

We know this because of a tweet sent by NBC reporter Leigh Ann Caldwell claiming that "Kennedy and Trump/WH had been in negotiations for months over Kennedy’s replacement. Once Kennedy received assurances that it would be Kavanaugh, his former law clerk, Kennedy felt comfortable retiring."

On Kavanaugh pick

Kennedy and Trump/WH had been in negotiations for months over Kennedy’s replacement. Once Kennedy received assurances that it would be Kavanaugh, his former law clerk, Kennedy felt comfortable retiring, according to a source who was told of the discussions.

— Leigh Ann Caldwell (@LACaldwellDC) July 10, 2018

 

Furthermore, the five names Trump added to his list of Federalist Approved judges last November was to get Kavanaugh on that list. The other four names were considered cover, per source.

In other words: the decision has been baked for a while:
W/ @frankthorp

 
 

Now naysayers might point out that Caldwell immediately followed up by indicating that she "[doesn't] have any info on whether [Trump] talked to [Kennedy]" and was citing only one source.

dYSY1kEX_normal.jpg

Furthermore, the five names Trump added to his list of Federalist Approved judges last November was to get Kavanaugh on that list. The other four names were considered cover, per source.

In other words: the decision has been baked for a while:
W/ @frankthorp

 

To be clear: This is from one source and dont have any info on whether potus talked to kennedy about a possible replacement.

 
 

Or that she went back and deleted the tweet and said there was no "transactional nature" to Kennedy's discussions with the White House and that Kennedy listed a bunch of judges, not just Kavanaugh.

 

I’ve deleted this tweet because it incorrectly implies a transactional nature in Kennedy’s replacement. I am told by a source who was not directly part of the talks that Kennedy provided Pres. Trump/ WH a list of acceptable replacements. (1/2) pic.twitter.com/ptxJmrbH9S

View image on Twitter
 
 

Those naysayers, I hope to prove, work for Putin. But let's take a slight detour first.

2. Anthony Kennedy and Donald Trump are secret allies

Center for American Progress president Neera Tanden blew this one wide open back in June.

 

Just to state this: Justice Kennedy's son gave a billion dollar loan to Trump when no one would give him a dime, and Justice Kennedy has been ruling in favor of the Trump Administration position for 2 years as the Court decides 5-4 case after 5-4 case.

 
 

The quid pro quo here is obvious. First, the Kennedys provided Donald Trump with a $1 billion loan. In return for that favor, the Kennedys also ruled in Trump's favor in exchange for nothing. Rather deviously, Kennedy also ruled in favor of the Trump administration on cases where his past rulings strongly suggest he would've done so anyway. It makes too much sense NOT to be true.

3. MSNBC's Stephanie Ruhle IS IN ON IT

The MSNBC host immediately threw cold water on Tanden's theory at the time, citing her previous work with Justin Kennedy at Deutsche Bank (note: "Deutsche" is German for "Russian") and claiming he didn't have anything to do with the Trump loan.

 

I worked w/Justin at DB
While he did run a portion of the real estate biz
He was on the institutional side of the bank -NOT private bank
Trump was a private bank client & I believe the lending happened after justin left DB
Trump wanted to borrow from the instit side/they said NO

 
 

Since the fact is unimpeachable that the Kennedys traded $1 billion in return for them also giving Trump other things, we can only assume Ruhle is in on the conspiracy. But back to the Kavanaugh conspiracy…

4. The Kennedy/Trump Kavanaugh pick is directly tied to the Kennedy/Trump quid pro quo

Again, thank you to Neera Tanden for this insight, based on a tweet from an NBC reporter that was based on a tweet that has now been deleted.

 

Just a reminder: Justice Kennedy’s son made a billion dollars in loans to Trump from the Russia infested and sanctioned Deutche Bank. https://twitter.com/geoffrbennett/status/1016642192616706050 …

 
 

5. The Kennedy/Trump secret alliance dates back at least to 1998

That's when Trump got his first Deutsche Bank loan.

6. Trump was already a Russian agent, dating back to 1987

"What If Trump Has Been a Russian Asset Since 1987?" Jonathan Chait wrote for New York Magazine Monday. In a whopping 8,000 words, Chait lays out the case that, maybe, one day, hypothetically, you never know, there might be evidence indicating that, perhaps, there's a chance Trump has been a Russian agent dating back to 1987, possibly.

Chait notes that Trump began railing against the U.S. providing security to nations like Japan in return for no compensation in 1987. He briefly entertained the notion that Trump's showy entrance into politics and attacking America's "bad deals" might somehow be related to the 1987 release of The Art of the Deal. But Chait notes Trump was talking about Japan two months before The Art of the Dealwas released, and surely no one has ever sought publicity or had an idea before a book release.

Instead, the shift must have been brought about by Trump's 1987 trip to Russia, Chait concludes. But he does assuage the doubters:

The safest assumption is that it’s entirely coincidental that Trump launched a national campaign, with himself as spokesman, built around themes that dovetailed closely with Soviet foreign-policy goals shortly after his Moscow stay. Indeed, it seems slightly insane to contemplate the possibility that a secret relationship between Trump and Russia dates back this far. But it can’t be dismissed completely. How do you even think about the small but real chance — 10 percent? 20 percent? — that the president of the United States has been covertly influenced or personally compromised by a hostile foreign power for decades?

I can see no flaws in this logic.

7. If Trump was a Russian agent in 1998, Justice Kennedy was likely made a Russian agent AROUND THAT TIME

The safest assumption is this is false. It seems slightly insane to say it's true. But if there's at least a 10 percent chance this is true, shouldn't we be discussing it?

8. Trump and Kennedy would only choose someone else in their Russian spy circle to replace him on the Supreme Court

Makes sense.

9. Brett Kavanaugh is a Russian agent who reports directly to Putin

I understand this may be confusing to some. So I've decided to make a chart.

Screen-Shot-2018-07-10-at-12.47.51-PM.pn

I know what you're thinking: "Alex, isn't this all a bit speculative?" Well, what's the alternative? That multiple reporters and respectable center-left pundits have fallen prey to absurd, unproved conspiracy theories about President Donald Trump as a result of the impotence and frustration they feel at an inability to curb his policy and Supreme Court picks?

Personally, I find that hard to swallow.

This entry was posted in Politics and tagged Brett Kavanaugh, Parody, Russia, Satire. Bookmark the permalink.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I'm guessing it's parents. 

You’re supposed to pay taxes on a gift that big.  Donald out front should have told you.  And if it’s not parents ?  The whole point relates to compromise, which is highly relevant in this context.

23 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

I think it's time to move on from this one. I think it's terrible that BK was confirmed and thought it would have been better for all sides had they just replaced his nomination with anyone else from their list, but that did not happen. 

Impeaching a Supreme Court Justice is a TERRIBLE look for our country and on the political side of things would have terrible consequences for Democrats, while the impeachment fight itself would only do more damage to the reputation of the court in a time where, as a country, we can't afford any more erosion in confidence in our institutions. 

At the end of the day, elections have MAJOR consequences. Take all of the "impeach Kavanaugh" energy and channel into voting, getting your friends to vote and campaigning. 

If impeaching a scotus justice is a bad look, how about a sitting potus ?  Of course it’s a bad look and will have consequences.  But unverifying the truth combined with inaction in the face of ongoing corruption is worse.  Too big to fail ?  BS.  

The financials are the tack.  Math don’t lie.  People getting pissed at exposing a tax cheat caught lying, or shell game debtor caught lying, and don’t get pissed at the enablers who abdicated their duty ?  

Show me.  I won’t be a chickenshit sandwich.  A majority of people won’t either.  A preponderance of dealing in truth offers survival of our stability, not being afraid to expose corruption and lying, and those who fell for it, or who identify with it by their own duplicitous nature.

Vote? Absolutely  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18924

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, triplehorn said:

You’re supposed to pay taxes on a gift that big.  Donald out front should have told you.  And if it’s not parents ?  The whole point relates to compromise, which is highly relevant in this context.

As far as I understand it, gifts are not taxable unless the monetary value exceeds the lifetime gift tax exclusion, which is way more than $250,000. His folks would, however, have to file a gift tax return for a gift that large.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lagunamadre

Lagunamadre 1975

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

You’re supposed to pay taxes on a gift that big.  Donald out front should have told you.  And if it’s not parents ?  The whole point relates to compromise, which is highly relevant in this context.

If impeaching a scotus justice is a bad look, how about a sitting potus ?  Of course it’s a bad look and will have consequences.  But unverifying the truth combined with inaction in the face of ongoing corruption is worse.  Too big to fail ?  BS.  

The financials are the tack.  Math don’t lie.  People getting pissed at exposing a tax cheat caught lying, or shell game debtor caught lying, and don’t get pissed at the enablers who abdicated their duty ?  

Show me.  I won’t be a chickenshit sandwich.  A majority of people won’t either.  A preponderance of dealing in truth offers survival of our stability, not being afraid to expose corruption and lying, and those who fell for it, or who identify with it by their own duplicitous nature.

Vote? Absolutely  

A POTUS is a politician a Justice is not. So impeaching a president would not be as consequential as impeaching a justice, IMHO, purely on the basis that if you do it to a Justice, you officially drag the Justices square into the political sphere while a president already lives there. I just think it would lead to a perpetual which hunt (pardon that term) for all justices forever. I just picture the Breitbarts of the world with non stop headlines "SOTOMAYOR'S HUSBANDS CONNECTED TO COLUMBIAN CARTEL FINANCIAL CHIEF" and Deven Nunes demanding an investigation. That could be the final nail in the coffin for our institutions. 

Now don't get me wrong, if it comes out that BK has committed verifiable crimes, then he should step down or be impeached. But, picking at how he paid his mortgage, seems too petty to raise a stink. And seeing that he went to Georgetown Prep and Yale, he probably paid for it the same way all of his classmates did, with his parents money. 

And re impeaching Donald, I would love it, but only if something ironclad comes out showing an impeachable offense, which I have yet to see. Hopeful Mueller brings the goods. If not, let's vote that fucker out in 2020.  

Edited by Lagunamadre
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

As far as I understand it, gifts are not taxable unless the monetary value exceeds the lifetime gift tax exclusion, which is way more than $250,000. His folks would, however, have to file a gift tax return for a gift that large.

 

I stand corrected.  I believe I confused it with declarations though there are some exceptions that apply to justices.  

The vanishing large credit card debt disappearing right before his nomination is a separate but not unrelated matter and much more characteristic of circumstances ripe for financial compromise/blackmail.

12 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

A POTUS is a politician a Justice is not. So impeaching a president would not be as consequential as impeaching a justice, IMHO, purely on the basis that if you do it to a Justice, you officially drag the Justices square into the political sphere while a president already lives there. I just think it would lead to a perpetual which hunt (pardon that term) for all justices forever. I just picture the Breitbarts of the world with non stop headlines "SOTOMAYOR'S HUSBANDS CONNECTED TO COLUMBIAN CARTEL FINACIAL CHIEF" and Deven Nunes demanding an investigation. That could be the final nail in the coffin for our institutions. 

Now don't get me wrong, if it comes out that BK has committed verifiable crimes, then he should step down or be impeached. But, picking at how he paid his mortgage, seems too petty to rise a stink. And seeing that he went to Georgetown Prep and Yale, he probably paid for it the same way all of his classmates did, with his parents money. 

And re impeaching Donald, I would love it, but only if something ironclad comes out showing an impeachable offense, which I have yet to see. Hopeful Mueller brings the goods. If not, let's vote that fucker out in 2020.  

You make a persuasive argument.  However, we’re talking about a potential pattern of lying covering multiple subjects, not one ‘forgivable’ lie to avoid embarrassment.  

I’d expect an expeditious and responsible investigation.  Anything less would rapidly lead to the negative outcomes you envision.  

Truth hurts.  Serial lying is harmful.

 

 

Edited by triplehorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sheeeit

sheeeit 129

Posted
Posted
46 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:
59 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Which manufacturing jobs are going back? Actual numbers would be great, not feelings.

Facts don't matter.  Dear Leader out front shoulda toldja.

 

40 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Whatever you say, big guy. Move to small town Indiana and get a job then. Put your life where your mouth is.

JFC you guys are a beating.  Fondren posts that the rust belt has not had any economic growth and, as a result, the dems can easily get their support if they just show up there to campaign.  I post long time economic forecasting services that show that 4 of the 5 rust belt states have consumer confidence and business economic optimism at all time highs.  Not simply the big cities.  The entire states.  The unemployment numbers for these states are at 40 year lows.  Wage growth in these states has been higher than anytime in the last 20 years.

https://www.eauclairechamber.org/eau-claire-chamber-blog/regional-employer-survey-shows-local-wage-growth-accelerating

Quote

On the county level, 52 counties had percentage wage growth ahead of the national rate. Ohio County topped the list at 21.76 percent. Landing in second and third place were Pike and LaGrange counties at almost 12.75 and 9.74 percent respectively.

Those are for Indiana (Fondren) and Wisconsin.  Anyone can look this stuff up.

Read the actual data.  In these states around 50% of the job growth and wage growth are in manufacturing of durable goods.  The exact types of jobs that dems told them were never coming back.  They are coming back.  

Jimmy keeps posting stuff about Carrier and I have no idea why.  Carriers plant in Indianapolis that made all the headlines is openly hiring.  They cant find enough people to keep up with demand.  Their biggest issue right now is keeping the line open to reach their quotas.  Starting pay over $18/hour and up to $20 within 6 months plus as much OT as they want.

For the country, durable manufacturing jobs actually decreased from jan '15 to jan '17 by 47,000 jobs.  And most of the losses were in 2016.  Since jan '17 to jul '18 (6 full months less time)  there have been 311,000 durable goods manufacturing jobs created with the bulk coming in 2018.

By any measure, this is fantastic for the country.  

It is just so typical for this place and the usual suspects that someone could post something so stupid- that dems could easily get back the rust belt states because they have not had any economic gains and are "eating shit" when the reports from those states have economic confidence at all time highs- and not only do people not criticize the post they seem to be trying to defend it.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18924

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, sheeeit said:

 

JFC you guys are a beating.  Fondren posts that the rust belt has not had any economic growth and, as a result, the dems can easily get their support if they just show up there to campaign.  I post long time economic forecasting services that show that 4 of the 5 rust belt states have consumer confidence and business economic optimism at all time highs.  Not simply the big cities.  The entire states.  The unemployment numbers for these states are at 40 year lows.  Wage growth in these states has been higher than anytime in the last 20 years.

https://www.eauclairechamber.org/eau-claire-chamber-blog/regional-employer-survey-shows-local-wage-growth-accelerating

Those are for Indiana (Fondren) and Wisconsin.  Anyone can look this stuff up.

Read the actual data.  In these states around 50% of the job growth and wage growth are in manufacturing of durable goods.  The exact types of jobs that dems told them were never coming back.  They are coming back.  

Jimmy keeps posting stuff about Carrier and I have no idea why.  Carriers plant in Indianapolis that made all the headlines is openly hiring.  They cant find enough people to keep up with demand.  Their biggest issue right now is keeping the line open to reach their quotas.  Starting pay over $18/hour and up to $20 within 6 months plus as much OT as they want.

For the country, durable manufacturing jobs actually decreased from jan '15 to jan '17 by 47,000 jobs.  And most of the losses were in 2016.  Since jan '17 to jul '18 (6 full months less time)  there have been 311,000 durable goods manufacturing jobs created with the bulk coming in 2018.

By any measure, this is fantastic for the country.  

It is just so typical for this place and the usual suspects that someone could post something so stupid- that dems could easily get back the rust belt states because they have not had any economic gains and are "eating shit" when the reports from those states have economic confidence at all time highs- and not only do people not criticize the post they seem to be trying to defend it.  

This is why he's talking about Carrier.

This is why he's talking about Ford.

 

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...