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

dOUblewide

dOUblewide 101

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

well in that case. we should always send the FBI out for the less severe examples of sexual misconduct, and keep them in their cubicles for the allegations on the more serious end of the spectrum. 

Except the FBI's purpose is to investigate  and report on the fitness/general trustworthiness of the investigated individual. They are not trying to prosecute individual sex crimes.  

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dOUblewide

dOUblewide 101

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

DW, yOU either don't have a clue about what you're talking about or you're just another amateur operative selling his integrity for the team. Shameless even for an anonymous writer.

Just let me know once you find out how common it is for the White House to order the FBI to investigate a sexual assault allegation. 

Id actually like to know. I think it's pretty rare...but i've been wrong before. 

  • Fuck You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, dOUblewide said:

Just let me know once you find out how common it is for the White House to order the FBI to investigate a sexual assault allegation. 

Id actually like to know. I think it's pretty rare...but i've been wrong before. 

How often does a president fire the FBI director?

How often does a White House leak intelligence to Russians in the Oval Office? 

How often do the two things above happen in the same week? 

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dOUblewide

dOUblewide 101

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

How often does a president fire the FBI director?

How often does a White House leak intelligence to Russians in the Oval Office? 

How often do the two things above happen in the same week? 

Not very often and I cant really defend either. Not sure how this is related to this thread though. 

FBI only looks at whether the nominee "could pose a risk to the national security of the United States,

Quote

While the matter was referred to the FBI, the DOJ spokesperson said it is not the responsibility of the bureau to "make any judgment about the credibility or significance of any allegation."

A background investigation conducted by the FBI only looks at whether the nominee "could pose a risk to the national security of the United States," the DOJ spokesperson said.

 

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, horncyclist said:
8 minutes ago, happyfunball said:
This seems like big news

 

Yep. Big time lawyer.

Also a gazillion connections within the FBI past and present.

 

Bromwich was a federal prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York and served as associate counsel in the Office of Independent Counsel for Iran-Contra. Bromwich was one of three lawyers for the government in the prosecution of Oliver L. North.[1]

He was the Inspector General for the Department of Justice from 1994 to 1999. He headed an investigation into the FBI laboratory; the investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103; the FBI's conduct regarding Aldrich Ames; the handling of classified information by the FBI and the Department of Justice in the campaign finance investigation; the alleged deception of a congressional delegation by high-ranking officials of the Immigration and Naturalization Service; and the Justice Department's role in the CIA crack cocaine controversy.[1][2]

In 1999, he joined Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson.[2] He joined the New York office of Fried Frank, where he headed the firm's internal investigations, compliance and monitoring practice group .[1][2]

In 2002, he served as an independent monitor for the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia.[1]

In 2005, he was appointed to act as independent investigator for the Houston Police Department, to conduct an investigation and audit of its crime laboratory and property room. Bromwich and his team's investigations reported their conclusions in a final report published in 2007. They found pervasive fraud in the Houston crime lab, including fabrications of forensic analysis, false statements, and other forms of misconduct, and recommended major changes to crime lab procedure. Houston closed its crime lab and reestablished a new crime lab, independent of law enforcement, in 2014, with new procedures and standards.[3]

In 2018, he began leading the legal team of former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 47265

Posted
Posted

Kavanaugh's selection is not just about abortion.  He's not the only "qualified" (LOL -- moral turpitude, anyone?) judge who is staunchly pro-life.  It's about abortion, immigration law, health care, and most likely something else.  Something dark.  Very dark.  I can only imagine.

There is no need to water down the debate to pointless simplifications.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MixtyMotions

MixtyMotions 102

Posted
Posted

Who thinks she will testify?  Who thinks she won't?

I believe she won't.

I think they said yes, knowing that there was no downside to doing so.  I believe they will insist on renegotiating things they agreed to and then not show, saying the GOP is unfair.  This is the best way they have to keep this in the news for another four days.

This is all about the midterms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13566

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

You confuse your ignorance of the meaning of words, such as "full ahead", with me telling you to not to read my words and take them for their actual meaning. Well done. Do you ever tire of totally clowning yourself.  Maybe you can do the one again where you tell us all about Anthony Kennedy's elitist ties to JFK. 

Fair enough.

The idea that taking back a stolen seat and putting in a legit justice aside from this (alleged) attempted rapist and liar-under-oath is pushing ahead in the death spiral is still complete bullshit. It's neither the beginning nor the continuation of a death spiral, it's a desperate attempt to pull the fuck out of it.

Which, once again, you can't see, because you're morally and ethically blind.

Still waiting on the names of the Senators whose minds would be changed by Ford having reported in the 1980s. Been waiting for a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23724

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

The idea that taking back a stolen seat and putting in a legit justice aside from this (alleged) attempted rapist and liar-under-oath is pushing ahead in the death spiral is still complete bullshit. It's neither the beginning nor the continuation of a death spiral, it's a desperate attempt to pull the fuck out of it.

I think it's nosing down and accelerating. Y'all got clowned by turtle over moving a seat from the right to the center.  But didn't really protest too hard cause granny had it in the bag, and deep down hoped to move that seat even further left. Except, she shit the bed and ended up giving two seats to the GOP. You say stolen, from my perspective looks like the left fumbled, largely a result of hubris. I think McConnell should have given Garland a hearing and an up and down. That was a dick political move. And to right these political wrongs over highly divisive seats on the Supreme, the path forward is to amplify the divisiveness by stacking the court at the next available opportunity.  Go for it. I will enjoy the show. But don't sell me, or yourself, some nonsense that that move is going to pull us out of the dysfunctional political environment of the last 30+ years. Cause it won't. It's only going to amplify it.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ragnarok

Ragnarok 103

Posted
Posted

From NY Times puff piece:

Dr. Blasey developed a passion for surfing, which she shares with her husband and two sons. “She’s been chasing waves,” said Beth Stannard, a friend and former co-worker, who said Dr. Blasey’s decisions to teach at Pepperdine, in Malibu, Calif., and to complete an internship at the University of Hawaii were at least partly informed by the campuses’ seaside locations.  Lives in Palo Alto.  Inquiring minds would like to know how she made those little commutes.

 

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lurch

Lurch 5950

Posted
Posted
From NY Times puff piece:
Dr. Blasey developed a passion for surfing, which she shares with her husband and two sons. “She’s been chasing waves,” said Beth Stannard, a friend and former co-worker, who said Dr. Blasey’s decisions to teach at Pepperdine, in Malibu, Calif., and to complete an internship at the University of Hawaii were at least partly informed by the campuses’ seaside locations.  Lives in Palo Alto.  Inquiring minds would like to know how she made those little commutes.
 


Classy victim shaming. Keep it up. It’s a good look.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 47265

Posted
Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I think it's nosing down and accelerating. Y'all got clowned by turtle over moving a seat from the right to the center.  But didn't really protest too hard cause granny had it in the bag, and deep down hoped to move that seat even further left. Except, she shit the bed and ended up giving two seats to the GOP. You say stolen, from my perspective looks like the left fumbled, largely a result of hubris. I think McConnell should have given Garland a hearing and an up and down. That was a dick political move. And to right these political wrongs over highly divisive seats on the Supreme, the path forward is to amplify the divisiveness by stacking the court at the next available opportunity.  Go for it. I will enjoy the show. But don't sell me, or yourself, some nonsense that that move is going to pull us out of the dysfunctional political environment of the last 30+ years. Cause it won't. It's only going to amplify it.  

Of COURSE it's going to amplify the divide.  Fuck the divide.  I don't care, the right is irredeemable.  Write them off.  There is enough center and left to run this country if people will just vote.  The racists, the homophobes, the misogynists, the gun freaks, the morons . . . fuck them all.  I don't care about them.  I'm just waiting for them to die.

Edited by jimmyjazz
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23724

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Of COURSE it's going to amplify the divide.  Fuck the divide.  I don't care, the right is irredeemable.  Write them off.  There is enough center and left to run this country if people will just vote.  The racists, the homophobes, the anti-women, the gun freaks, the morons . . . fuck the mall.  I don't care about them.

Let’s take a break and worry about a different type of tight spirals for a bit. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Francisco 2.0

Francisco 2.0 32607

Posted
Posted (edited)

https://www.thedailybeast.com/im-a-republican-but-kavanaugh-must-withdraw-his-nomination?ref=home

 

Quote

Speaking as a lifelong moderate, Republican woman, this is over. Ed Whelan’s tweet storm trying to name another man as the possible assaulter of Dr. Ford was a tipping point for me, and many others. Clearly, Whelan, a GOP operative, knew about Ford before her name was made public. Many of us supported Kavanaugh, because of his reputation and character as a family man, great husband, and devoted mentor of his female law clerks. But, Kavanaugh cannot serve on the high court with credibility now. This is not 1991, this is 2018 and a whole lot has changed on how we see sexual assault, and how we treat victims of such assault. More importantly, the #MeToo movement is not going to sit passively by and allow another man credibly accused of sexual harassment or sexual assault of a woman get voted onto the court without some hell to pay.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and his “we will just plow right through”  rhetoric has been tone deaf and crude. Senator Orin Hatch’s comment that even if Brett Kavanaugh “raped” professor Ford when she was 15 and he was 17 he would have a hard time keeping him off the courtis reprehensible.

 

Quote

I was on the fence about all of this when the allegations first broke, because I did not like the tactics of Senate Democrats in how they leaked this after days of hearings when Kavanaugh was under oath and could have been questioned and pressed on this issue privately and publicly if need be. Instead, we have Thomas-Hill redux, and I will forever remember the horror I felt as a young black female law student seeing the way Professor Hill was treated by some of the very same Republican Senators that we see in charge of this process in 2018.

 

Quote

Here’s the thing: I think our nation is losing. I think we have gone down a political rabbit hole that we may never return from. We hate our opponents now. We don’t just disagree. We can’t lose agreeably. We must destroy their reputation. We must dig up dirt. We must hurt their families, and put them in danger even, just to prove that we are right. This is not healthy for a democracy.  This is not good for a nation that, once upon a time, was made up of optimists. 

America has fallen. Judge Kavanaugh may not have been your cup of tea or mine. He may in fact be the vote that could roll back Roe v. Wade. Or he could end up being another Justice Lewis Powell, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, or Justice Anthony Kennedy. I suspect we will never know, because I think that public sympathy will keep moving toward Ford and Kavanaugh will be remembered as the man who attempted to rape a high school classmate at age 17.

 

Quote

This is a new day, but the GOP seems stuck in a past century. Their side of the Senate Judiciary committee has never had a woman sit on it in its 202-year history. The Democrats have had five, with four of them on the committee today. The GOP is the old, white, angry boys club. They don’t get it.

 

Edited by Francisco 2.0
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13566

Posted
Posted
53 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I think it's nosing down and accelerating. Y'all got clowned by turtle over moving a seat from the right to the center.  But didn't really protest too hard cause granny had it in the bag, and deep down hoped to move that seat even further left.

"Didn't really protest too hard" = "Following the Democratic norms that Anastasis says must be followed to keep us out of the death spiral"

What should the Dems have done? Please answer a substantive question for once.

Quote

I think McConnell should have given Garland a hearing and an up and down. That was a dick political move.

GOP does a thing: "a dick political move"

Dems do a thing: "nosing down and accelerating (in the death spiral)"

You are fucking transparent.

Quote

And to right these political wrongs over highly divisive seats on the Supreme, the path forward is to amplify the divisiveness by stacking the court at the next available opportunity.

There is literally nothing Dems/libs can do to stop the divisiveness. The right wing has poisoned itself and continues to do so. The left has nothing to do with it.

You are blaming the left for something the right has done to itself.

Quote

 Go for it. I will enjoy the show.

Of course you'll enjoy it.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23724

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

You are fucking transparent.

Snicker. Your rhetoric is based entirely on misrepresenting others. Transparent is right. 

 

McConnell absolutely contributed to tightening and accelerating our political dysfunction.  

Edited by Anastasis
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted
10 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Now that she's testifying, shit is gonna get real. 

Not so fast.   I’m telling you, the GOP does not want her to testify and even if she does, they want a hitman woman lawyer to question her instead of doing their fucking job.

As a man, that’s the most insulting part of the Republicans request.  You seriously can’t question this lady yourself because you’re too chickenshit of the “optics”.  It’s some of the most cowardly snowflake politics I’ve ever seen. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 106984

Posted
Posted
Why did you avoid my simple question?  An honest person would admit when they falsely accuse someone of lying.   

Oh...Aphelion the liar (that’s what someone who’s purposefully disingenuous is - saying “if” about something he knows to be fact)...I forgot you were there. You may go now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MaybeACoordinator

MaybeACoordinator 8350

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Brisketexan said:


What continues to amaze me is how sideways the abortion debate has returned everything else.

Literally nothing else matters. We’re okay with kiddie jails, relentless lying, gutting the rule of law, the most naked corruption on a national level that anyone alive has ever seen, etc etc forever....but if the guy who does all that is “pro life,” well then, we’re good.

Part of me wishes that roe v wade would be completely reversed - I mean COMPLETELY - abortion is 100% banned. Just so I could see what would become of the GOP once they no longer have that excuse.

What a broken fucking system. And it’s going to get 100X worse before it gets any better.

Give the people what they want --- good and hard and with no lube at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
46 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


Oh...Aphelion the liar (that’s what someone who’s purposefully disingenuous is - saying “if” about something he knows to be fact)...I forgot you were there. You may go now.

You cannot answer a basic question that would be simple even in a 1st year logic class.  You know nothing about logic even though you repeatably write LOGIC and REASON in all caps; when you are lost you fall back on the repetition of accusations such as "lying liar who lies" in a Trumplike fashion.   You base an accusation of lying based on your complete ignorance of basic logic concepts and then run from a simple yes or no question that you cannot answer because you know it will expose your ignorance.  That is why you will continue to avoid it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 106984

Posted
Posted
You cannot answer a basic question that would be simple even in a 1st year logic class.  You know nothing about logic even though you repeatably write LOGIC and REASON in all caps; when you are lost you fall back on the repetition of accusations such as "lying liar who lies" in a Trumplike fashion.   You base an accusation of lying based on your complete ignorance of basic logic concepts and then run from a simple yes or no question that you cannot answer because you know it will expose your ignorance.  That is why you will continue to avoid it.  

When something is a certainty - like the fact that we’re posting on Surly - using the predicate “if” is an intentional obfuscation of a fact.

If I said in reference to this conversation “if you are replying to me on Surly,” I would be lying. Because I would be characterizing a known truth as an uncertainty.

You characterized a statement - literally the first line of my initial post - as an uncertainty - “if” I said that.

You think you’re being clever. You’re not. You’re being a liar, a person who characterizes something as something that it is not. It’s fine, you seem to be satisfied with yourself. And happiness is important.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


When something is a certainty - like the fact that we’re posting on Surly - using the predicate “if” is an intentional obfuscation of a fact.

If I said in reference to this conversation “if you are replying to me on Surly,” I would be lying. Because I would be characterizing a known truth as an uncertainty.

You characterized a statement - literally the first line of my initial post - as an uncertainty - “if” I said that.

You think you’re being clever. You’re not. You’re being a liar, a person who characterizes something as something that it is not. It’s fine, you seem to be satisfied with yourself. And happiness is important.

Is there a reason you cannot give a simple yes or no answer to a simple yes or no question?  Here it is again:

Does "if A, then B" logically imply "A is false"?  

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...