I mean in one sense it might be surprisingly and deeply charming, a career long public servant who seemingly has the net worth you'd expect of a career long public servant.

Until you discover that we're being asked to believe he went $200k into debt buying tickets to meaningless MLB games, all of which has recently been paid off before being nominated to the Supreme Court in what is potentially a long-orchestrated plan of the guy retiring, for whom he used to clerk, lorded over by a President who might know a thing or two about a good grift.

But: as I said, the likeliest outcome is he's a repressed middle aged white guy jurist with some sort of vice like sticking his dick in other women or playing dice or something. Or he's involved in some sort of convoluted petty grift that might have even really involved baseball tickets to launder whatever dirty money schemes he had going on. Dunno.

But no one likes Nationals baseball that much, is what I'm saying.

See...

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ickets/565022/

By next few years, they mean 11 years until 2017.

I haven't ready what his salary was during the time he worked in the Bush Whitehouse, but my guess is it was about $80-100k -- not exactly killing it for a couple with two kids (presumably) in private school in DC.

ETA: Kids are younger then I was thinking, so they didn't have both kids before he was made circuit court judge.

https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/The...es-E234426.htm

Even at $200k, paying that off at $18k/year doesn't seem to raise an eyebrow for a dual-income family where the principal wage earner earns $200-220k/year, if they are sufficiently motivated.

Its likely that he's refinanced his mortgage and rolled credit card debt into that loan.

Not sure I've seen any mention of his retirement funds, but given his government job, I doubt the Kavanaugh's are putting away 20% of their pre-tax salary into IRA savings.

I would expect that his daughters' college funds are woefully underfunded at this point. Though, a nice book deal will probably fix that.

None of this seems suspicious.

I understood the article a little differently.

He incurred a debt of $60-200k in 2006 that he paid off over several years. He also incurred a separate $60-200k debt last year that he has paid in full.

So from your post, we learn:

- Kavanaugh had debt dating back a decade (I agree this is uninteresting)
- some guesses as to what Kavanaugh's salary was while in public service
- some guesses as to how he might have amortized his debt including a potential refinance of his home and what kind of equity he might have his in retirement funds
- the state of his daughters' education funds
- his potential revenues from book sales

...then we declare "none of this seems suspicious."

Unremarked on by you: the White House is claiming his debt was incurred purchasing baseball tickets

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inves...=.34e21d02a1df

His bizarre spending habits on baseball tickets which by the White House's admission contributed to large personal debts have now been drawn down due to recent reimbursements from friends.

"Nothing suspicious here," says man venturing guess as to his salary over a decade ago for unclear reasons to refute stories of his personal spending habits on sporting events incurring large debts, now settled by friends.

I mean, there is this paragraph:

I presume we'll hear more about this in the next few weeks.

OK. From your post we learn no actual evidence of any wrong doing.

Correct, nothing suspicious here.

This being a poker site, I'm pretty sure we've all observed how tightly and suspiciously non-poker players deal with large sums of money when transacting with other people.

So yeah, color me skeptical that family man Brett Kavanaugh is like "sure I'm gonna taken on tens (hundreds?) of thousands in debt for these Nationals tickets, hit me back whenever guys, I know you're good for it", which is behavior that would otherwise only ever be seen in the HSNL forum.

edit: or in other words...

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Me, a stupid person: "So this guy racked up thousands of dollars of baseball ticket debts and recently had it paid off by friends? That's suspicious"

You, a smart person: "He made a salary in 2006. Also he probably refinanced his house"

Me, a stupid person: "...uhh, OK, but it's kind of suspicious he bought tens of thousands of dollars of baseball tickets and it was all recently paid off right before he became an even more powerful person"

You, a smart person: "well, if you insist, this piece detailing the fact he suspiciously bought tens of thousands of dollars of baseball tickets and it was all recently paid off before he became an even more powerful person? Is that what you mean? Perhaps we will find out more about this, someday"

Me, a stupid person: "uhh, yeah, that's exactly what I ****ing mean. So we agree this is suspicious then?"

You, a smart person: "You have no evidence of wrongdoing"

I'm sure Rosenstein will be looking into whether Kavanaugh broke the law. I'm not the least bit concerned that any actual evidence of any wrong doing will be made public.

Until then... correct, nothing suspicious.

If anyone's at all curious how brainwashed conservatives have become, check out Lapdogator proclaiming as a new rule that even cover stories that are suspicious on their face can't be considered "suspicious" without more evidence

Donald Trump: "So maybe there is a pee tape with me and Russian hookers, so what, I'm entitled to privacy in my sexual exploits and that doesn't mean anything else in the dossier is correct"
Liberals, stupid people: "WHAT THE ****???"
Lapdogator, smart person: "I'm sure Rosenstein will investigate, nothing suspicious until then!"

Dvaut, have you seen the GLOW documentary on Netflix? Seems up your alley.



Also, **** off, the Nats are great.

Who amongst us hasn't taken out a mortgage to attend a base-ball contest

Most likely, Rosenstein will have a press conference and declare that Brett was extremely careless, but not grossly negligent.

He'll go on to say that Brett's wife didn't do anything wrong when she bankrupted that college in VT.

wapo paywall is absolute space ebola, **** those guys

chrome incognito browsing is your friend

You could try actually paying for things.

This is all excellent.

As a recent example Anthony Kennedy, who we now know was just a crooked political operator who happened to be a Supreme Court Justice, claimed that someone MIGHT produce evidence of harm resulting from partisan gerrymandering sufficient to confer standing for a Constitutional claim. What he's really doing is engaging in low grade trolling dressed up in flowery legal jargon.

The Supreme Court as presently comprised will bat down any challenge to partisan gerrymandering. Yet liberals, whose hearts are in the right place, will waste precious time learning constitutional law as if there's an argument that these federalist society ghouls will receive in good faith.

As is supporting businesses helping save democracy

Fact Checker - The Washington Post - July 13, 2038: Thinly sourced theories provided by Supreme Court Justice Baron Trump show that President Donald Trump Junior's controversial new law which denies the right of legal counsel to poor people tossed off Trump Tower by rich billionaires as part of a reality show contest in which the recently detained contestants who happened to be walking by the Trump Tower in shoddy clothes were made ran laps around the edge of the top floor of the tower and dance as members of the Trump family fired BB guns at their feet, were not, in fact, agents of a deep state conspiracy cited by Justice Trump to deny their right to counsel.

In fact, there is really little evidence to suggest poor people are happy to sacrifice their lives for the personal entertainment of the Trump family. We rate this claim THREE AND ONE HALF PINOCCHIOS.

VIDEO: watch former Trump Junior Chief of Staff Milo Yiannopoulos debate a human rights attorney for the ACLU whether the poor schmucks deserved it.

RELATED STORY: new data from our partners at Vox Thirty Eight dot com show poor people's life expectancy approaches that of billionaires when not hurled to their death for sport.

Anyway, probably can't post for a while, just noting that the Kavanaugh story here is probably pretty boring, but that in the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Eighteen that a presumptive SCOTUS justice's federal disclosure forms revealed six figures of consumer and personal loan debts which have recently been paid off by friends, for which the justification is basically "baseball tickets" and no one will have the budget, time, or attention span to cover or care about any of this because these sorts of stories make Kavanaugh only the 3683535th unseemliest person in our political culture. In fact the most shocking thing about this is that we've learned that a powerful judge isn't already a multi-millionaire many times over and has to scrabble hard for his cash.

Lapidator is ultimately correct this a big nothingburger because we simply take it at face value now that people with immense political power just have six and seven figure sums float around mysteriously in and out of their lives as a matter of course, and no one has the attention span to follow up, because later today we'll find out Scott Pruitt's wife Marilynn Pruitt has somehow now been nominated the Interim EPA Administrator to replace recently disgraced EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, and she signed off on permission for ExxonMobile to drain the oceans of the world and empty its waters into West Virginia and in exchange she has had her franchise fees waived on a series of Five Guys she's opening in Alexandria Virginia.

So the official reporting requirement is 5-6 figures. $60,000 to $200,000 range.

The initial accusation in this thread (based on no evidence) is immediately set to the high side of the range, to wit "6 figures".

The follow-up accusation in this thread (based on no evidence) is now "six and seven figure sums float around mysteriously".

Post some evidence when you find it.

The further accusation that "no one has the budget, time or attention span to cover it" is nonsense. There are many stories on this topic in the recent 24hr news cycle. DAG Rosenstein has asked for dozens of federal prosecutors to help vet Kavanaugh -- and we all know that they will turn over even the smallest pebbles to see what crawls out.

I remain confident that any actual evidence of any wrong doing by Kavanaugh will be found and published.

So learning constitutional law is wasting precious time?

as a liberal? yes. as a conservate? only so that you can provide the thinnest cover to allow republicans and conservatives to act as they wish and dems can get ****ed.

"Brett Kavanaugh gave my daughter an appellate clerkship, so of course he would make a fine SCOTUS justice." --some ****ing legacy Yalie dickwad, stating the quiet partsw aloud