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

Lagunamadre

Lagunamadre 1975

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

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 is a separate but not unrelated matter.  

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.

I agree that he has shown himself to be a lair on multiple fronts. But nearly impossible to definitively prove any of those were lies. We're not going to have a senate investigation into what "boofing" and "devils triangle" means. And the Dr. Ford stuff, which for the record I 100% believe her, is not going to have some treasure trove of corroborating evidence appear 35 years later. The Pryor nomination and Lehey's stolen emails he has enough plausible deniability, "I meant I wasn't the lead guy in charge of Pryor" "I was never informed the emails were stolen", etc, etc. Is he a perpetual liar? Absolutely. Are any of the individual lies blatant enough to have an impeachment investigation that has a likely chance of success? Not in my opinion. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
EMAWesome

EMAWesome 101

Posted
Posted
12 minutes 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.  

It kind of makes you feel like Leo Ryan around here doesn't it?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sheeeit

sheeeit 129

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

This is why he's talking about Carrier.

This is why he's talking about Ford.

 

I am done with this.  Did you even read the articles?  Carrier is hiring.  They cant get quality employees to fill the demand.  How the fuck is that an indictment on the economy or on US manufacturing?  Ford is in the middle of restructuring that was announced years ago.  Just stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
troph

troph 24549

Posted
Posted

I’m glad economics are good, trump policies probably have a positive impact, they aren’t republican policies they are populist policies shared by Bernie and Warren too, they have nothing to do with social issues and have nothing to do with SCOTUS nominees, trumps collusion or the moral crap Kavanaugh brings to the table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

I agree that he has shown himself to be a lair on multiple fronts. But nearly impossible to definitively prove any of those were lies. We're not going to have a senate investigation into what "boofing" and "devils triangle" means. And the Dr. Ford stuff, which for the record I 100% believe her, is not going to have some treasure trove of corroborating evidence appear 35 years later. The Pryor nomination and Lehey's stolen emails he has enough plausible deniability, "I meant I wasn't the lead guy in charge of Pryor" "I was never informed the emails were stolen", etc, etc. Is he a perpetual liar? Absolutely. Are any of the individual lies blatant enough to have an impeachment investigation that has a likely chance of success? Not in my opinion. 

Just stick to the money trail.  Any gifts from parents for home down payment are easy to verify.  Not headline news.

Re large credit card debt that disappeared recently before his nomination, he said that was all due to debt from home repairs and renovations, and baseball seats.  Someone did some forensic work and found zero permits of any kind for home remodeling/repairs.  Again, trust but verify.  If he lied about the source of his debt, how it got paid off, and that debt was not covered by his parents, that raises highly pertinent concerns that would be simple to flesh out.  If it passes basic scrutiny, then move on.  I have no appetite for a battle over plausible deniability.  If he lied intentionally, and repeatedly, over financial history - the appropriate consequences should follow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

LOL.  You don't know what you are talking about. 

Take a breath, bet boy.  I corrected my statement above an hour ago.

 It was about making disclosures to define sources of income for tax purposes.  Justices are exempt from making certain disclosures related to such gifts, evidently, so no one knows where the mortgage down payment came from and BK wouldn’t specify it.  I also confused it with inheritance tax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31184

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, G650 said:

Estate take exemption is currently 10mm per kid I think. Not sure what it was then.

The estate tax exemption is $5M per decedent, doesn't matter how many heirs there are.  There is an annual gift tax exemption of about $15k per donee and per donor (A couple can give $30k per donee). After that annual exemption, gifts remain tax free, but whittle down the estate tax exemption.

Using the downpayment as an example, and 2017-2018 exemptions, up to $60K could have been exempted (15 each from Ma n Pa Kavanaugh to each of Brett and Ashley), the remaining 185k would go against their later estate tax exemption, half against Ma's and half against Pa's.  It is easy enough to effectively double the estate tax exemption to $10M for a couple married at death, so no big deal.  However, gift tax returns would have or should have been filed to document the reduction in estate tax exemption.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31184

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Lagunamadre said:

I agree that he has shown himself to be a lair on multiple fronts. But nearly impossible to definitively prove any of those were lies. We're not going to have a senate investigation into what "boofing" and "devils triangle" means. And the Dr. Ford stuff, which for the record I 100% believe her, is not going to have some treasure trove of corroborating evidence appear 35 years later. The Pryor nomination and Lehey's stolen emails he has enough plausible deniability, "I meant I wasn't the lead guy in charge of Pryor" "I was never informed the emails were stolen", etc, etc. Is he a perpetual liar? Absolutely. Are any of the individual lies blatant enough to have an impeachment investigation that has a likely chance of success? Not in my opinion. 

Very much agree with this.  A lot of the perjury stuff was over matters of "opinion" or at least unverifiable fact, as in "primary" guy on Pryor.  Not provable as a criminal offense.  Maybe as impeachment.  Remember Starr took years and millions to prove Clinton's perjury, which was a positive statement of verifiable fact (and pretty much everyone "knew" he was lying).

Also, I don't think there's any judicial immunity preventing a criminal prosecution of a sitting Supreme Court justice, but there may be prudential concerns.

That said, the guy does seem to have a fairly serious candor problem, particularly as concerns reputational facts and factoids:  he has zero qualms playing fast and loose with the facts if the issue can make him look good or bad.  That's really undignified and doesn't befit the position. If Ginsburg is out for huffing the ganj, this asshole should have been too, for general purpose dipshittery.

Also, I suspect that Kavanaugh might well have been the pick of another, more legitimate administration, such as that of say Jeb Bush, Kasich, or Romney, for example.  And none of this would have come up.  Not sure what to make of that, as I think this guy should not be on the Supreme Court.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
G650

G650 13991

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The estate tax exemption is $5M per decedent, doesn't matter how many heirs there are.  There is an annual gift tax exemption of about $15k per donee and per donor (A couple can give $30k per donee). After that annual exemption, gifts remain tax free, but whittle down the estate tax exemption.

Using the downpayment as an example, and 2017-2018 exemptions, up to $60K could have been exempted (15 each from Ma n Pa Kavanaugh to each of Brett and Ashley), the remaining 185k would go against their later estate tax exemption, half against Ma's and half against Pa's.  It is easy enough to effectively double the estate tax exemption to $10M for a couple married at death, so no big deal.  However, gift tax returns would have or should have been filed to document the reduction in estate tax exemption.

I thought the recent tax bill doubled it. I could be wrong though.

 

Annual gift exemption is 25 or 26k though 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23375

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

It was about making disclosures to define sources of income for tax purposes.  Justices are exempt from making certain disclosures related to such gifts, evidently, so no one knows where the mortgage down payment came from and BK wouldn’t specify it. I also confused it with inheritance tax.

You still have not idea what you are talking about. This is clear to people that do. 

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

RayDog 682

Posted
Posted

There are also a couple club memberships and dues that are unnacounted for.

I suspect the house will hold hearings to find out who sent all the money and if he failed to disclose taxable gifts or earnings on his taxes. I suspect that if he is removed for cause it will most likely be for tax evasion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31184

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, RayDog said:

There are also a couple club memberships and dues that are unnacounted for.

I suspect the house will hold hearings to find out who sent all the money and if he failed to disclose taxable gifts or earnings on his taxes. I suspect that if he is removed for cause it will most likely be for tax evasion.

Except gifts are never taxable to the recipient.  All of his annual judicial financial disclosures can be seen here, including statements of net worth in 2003 and 2005 before his DC Cir confimations.

He is somewhat suspiciously poor for a guy that worked at Kirkland & Ellis for four years at no doubt ~$1M plus/annum.  He may have racked up some serious debt living in DC and working for the gubmint in other than a judicial position that he paid off with his private practice lucre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18608

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, sheeeit said:

I am done with this.  Did you even read the articles?  Carrier is hiring.  They cant get quality employees to fill the demand.  How the fuck is that an indictment on the economy or on US manufacturing?  Ford is in the middle of restructuring that was announced years ago.  Just stop.

Look, pumpkin, the trend lines of the current US economy all started going up right around March 2009. History will remember 2009 to whenever the next recession starts as the Obama economy.

Deal with it.

  • Haha 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28700

Posted
Posted
40 minutes ago, RayDog said:

There are also a couple club memberships and dues that are unnacounted for.

I suspect the house will hold hearings to find out who sent all the money and if he failed to disclose taxable gifts or earnings on his taxes. I suspect that if he is removed for cause it will most likely be for tax evasion.

Drain the swamp!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45513

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, sheeeit said:

I am done with this.  Did you even read the articles?  Carrier is hiring.  They cant get quality employees to fill the demand.  How the fuck is that an indictment on the economy or on US manufacturing?  Ford is in the middle of restructuring that was announced years ago.  Just stop.

Oh for fuck's sake.  Carrier went from 5 lines to 3.  The remaining employees are beaten down and not coming to work.  Only an absolute moron would see that as "good".  

Ford is laying off 12% of its workforce and DIRECTLY cites $1B in losses due to Trump's idiotic tariff war.

Farmers are taking it in the shorts, so Trump's administration is making it up with subsidies.  That's a brilliant solution to a problem that never needed to be created . . . let's go ahead and assume that the bottom line will be better, because the government is always the most efficient way to manage money.

If you're not a troll, sheeeit, you are one dumb motherfucker.  Your flaxen-haired pussy-grabber is a fucking idiot and you're just too stupid to see it.

I'll be eagerly awaiting your next "I'm done" reply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DallasGatr

DallasGatr 216

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

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 

Damn straight.  Not much hotter than a middle eastern/Persian woman cleaned up.  The world would be a much greater place without the hijab or some other form of oppression.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mole

Mole 4318

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, triplehorn said:

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.

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.

 

 

 

We'll have to agree to disagree here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
williemackgarza

williemackgarza 1826

Posted
Posted
Like you conservs always preach, I gotta let my disabled and terminal patients pull themselves up by their bootstraps so they don’t become welfare queens.
In all seriousness, 50% of my work is charity so I do what I can.
Your offer to send you cash is so tempting, but that would be so libtard  elitist o me.  But I’ll tell you what I will do.  I like supporting people trying to make a difference and standing up for what they believe in.  You say you have family members that serve or run for office?  Link their web site and I will donate a couple bills in the name of Surlyhorns and post it up here

Not sure I said are currently running, but my bro ran as a dem for tx house dist 52 as a democrat back in the 1990s in wilco. Against a rep incumbent. Lost. Also worked for Dem US Rep 14th dist greg laughlin in late 80s early 90s. Laughlin later flipped rep and lost to Ron Paul/ csb.
Got some great washington tours and could have gone to west point but chose UT instead.
Moms worked numerous dem campaigns including for H cisneros, d morales, jim mattox, and numerous local centex dem campaigns. All yellow dog democrat thru and thru.
Other family worked for D Dukes at her non-profit (yea sure) and in her rep office.
As for now. cousins with castro brothers from san antone and many so texas democratic leaders in various counties.
But if you want to donate some money, send it to the my buddy’s, Celebration of Love, (local non-profit) that serves military families during the holidays. Look them up, great org and the organizer is a dem loyalist.
Salud
Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

You still have not idea what you are talking about. This is clear to people that do. 

What is clear for anyone, is that the sums of money that were exchanged involve documentation.  Kavanaugh's financial history raises legitimate questions that an easily verifiable money trail can confirm.  He carried large credit card debt for about a decade until it totally disappeared preceding his nomination.  How? Why ?  His responses lacked substance and taken together with everything big and small could involve serial lying.  I don't trust this guy farther than he can bounce a quarter.  I'd be reassured about being proved wrong, but the SJC was a sham.

And considering how fond you are of Facebook, I offer you this:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted

WaPo:


Roberts refers judicial misconduct complaints against Kavanaugh to federal appeals court in Colorado 

By Ann E. Marimow and Tom Hamburger 
October 10 at 4:36 PM 

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. on Wednesday referred more than a dozen judicial misconduct complaints filed recently against Brett M. Kavanaugh to a federal appeals court in Colorado. ... The 15 complaints, related to statements Kavanaugh made during his Senate confirmation hearings, were initially filed with the federal appeals court in Washington, where Kavanaugh served for the last 12 years before his confirmation Saturday to the Supreme Court. 


[...]

It is unclear what will come of the review by the 10th Circuit. The judiciary's rules on misconduct do not apply to Supreme Court justices. The 10th Circuit will likely decide to dismiss the complaints as moot now that Kavanaugh has joined the high court. ... "There is nothing that a judicial council could do at this point," said Arthur D. Hellman, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh and expert on the operation of federal courts.

_________

Outfucknstanding.  Rush rush rush and ram it through.  This guy is damaged goods and Senate Republicans know it.  Those 15 complaints relate to his senate testimony and are work associated.

Vote.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted

Absolute piece of shit.

Quote

The question in the case was whether federal authorities must detain immigrants who had committed crimes, often minor ones, no matter how long ago they were released from criminal custody. Justice Kavanaugh said a 1996 federal law required detention even years later, without an opportunity for a bail hearing.

“What was really going through Congress’s mind in 1996 was harshness on this topic,” he said.

But Justice Gorsuch suggested that mandatory detentions of immigrants long after they completed their sentences could be problematic. “Is there any limit on the government’s power?” he asked.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer pressed the point, asking a lawyer for the federal government whether it could detain “a person 50 years later, who is on his death bed, after stealing some bus transfers” without a bail hearing “even though in this country a triple ax murderer is given a bail hearing.”

This motherfucker can burn in Hell.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/10/us/politics/kavanaugh-immigration-supreme-court-case.htmlhttps://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/10/us/politics/kavanaugh-immigration-supreme-court-case.html

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31184

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

The GOP finally got their Bork on the Supreme Court. 

Eh.  The confirmation objections to Bork were almost entirely related to his judicial philosophy rather than any character issues.  Even his participation in the Saturday Night Massacre was characterized as a judicial philosophy issue (executive power) rather than a character issue.  Kavanaugh is pretty mainstream in comparison to Bork.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
horncyclist

horncyclist 1384

Posted
Posted
Absolute piece of shit.

The question in the case was whether federal authorities must detain immigrants who had committed crimes, often minor ones, no matter how long ago they were released from criminal custody. Justice Kavanaugh said a 1996 federal law required detention even years later, without an opportunity for a bail hearing.

“What was really going through Congress’s mind in 1996 was harshness on this topic,” he said.

But Justice Gorsuch suggested that mandatory detentions of immigrants long after they completed their sentences could be problematic. “Is there any limit on the government’s power?” he asked.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer pressed the point, asking a lawyer for the federal government whether it could detain “a person 50 years later, who is on his death bed, after stealing some bus transfers” without a bail hearing “even though in this country a triple ax murderer is given a bail hearing.”

This motherfucker can burn in Hell.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/10/us/politics/kavanaugh-immigration-supreme-court-case.htmlhttps://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/10/us/politics/kavanaugh-immigration-supreme-court-case.html
He seems to really know what Congress was thinking back at 96.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31184

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Fozzz said:

Absolute piece of shit.

This motherfucker can burn in Hell.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/10/us/politics/kavanaugh-immigration-supreme-court-case.htmlhttps://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/10/us/politics/kavanaugh-immigration-supreme-court-case.html

It's not real smart to guess where an appellate judge is going on an issue based on things said in oral argument.  He may think that.  He may not.  And, truth be told, he's stating what Congress desired, not whether he agrees with it or whether it's permissible under the Constitution.

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

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted

Someone should tell the racist shitheads at FAIR that they shouldn’t get ahead of themselves in their thinking that Brett will, consistent with his views as a lifelong reactionary, push an anti-immigrant line as a SCOTUS justice. 

Should he be confirmed, Brett Kavanaugh will have an opportunity to shape legal matters for decades to come. As it relates to immigration policy, Kavanaugh is a superb choice. In separate immigration-related dissents, Judge Kavanaugh rejected illegal alien voting in union elections and also noted that “mere economic expediency does not authorize an employer to displace American workers for foreign workers.” Those dissenting opinions are noteworthy because they demonstrate that Kavanaugh believes the function of American immigration law is to protect and prioritize the needs of American workers.

https://immigrationreform.com/2018/09/04/kavanaugh-hearings-begin-this-week/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Newy25

Newy25 7638

Posted
Posted
21 hours ago, triplehorn said:

What is clear for anyone, is that the sums of money that were exchanged involve documentation.  Kavanaugh's financial history raises legitimate questions that an easily verifiable money trail can confirm.  He carried large credit card debt for about a decade until it totally disappeared preceding his nomination.  How? Why ?  His responses lacked substance and taken together with everything big and small could involve serial lying.  I don't trust this guy farther than he can bounce a quarter.  I'd be reassured about being proved wrong, but the SJC was a sham.

And considering how fond you are of Facebook, I offer you this:

 

 

Just curious, is this even real and verifiable? It just seems like some random person on twitter should not be where you base opinions from. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23375

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, Newy25 said:

Just curious, is this even real and verifiable? It just seems like some random person on twitter should not be where you base opinions from. 

It's real. Kaplan and Kavanaugh both served in the GWB administration. But it doesn't reveal some conservative conspiracy in the tech industry as much as it reveals the total and completely incestuous nature of the DC political establishment. 

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...