There's no need for a full explanation, but it would be nice to quickly read what the link is about without having to open it.

Not seeing any empirical data here. Lol Huffington Post. Oh so its 1 in 4 now? Tomorrow it will be 8 out of 4 women will be raped every 60 seconds. That statistic has been destroyed over an over again as being complete horse shit. The rape rates aren't even that high in war zones. BTW its spelled "females".

i. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2010-2014 (2015);

ii. Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Incident-Based Reporting System, 2012-2014 (2015);

iii. Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Incident-Based Reporting System, 2012-2014 (2015);

iv. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties, 2009 (2013).

(This statistic combines information from several federal government reports. Because it combines data from studies with different methodologies, it is an approximation, not a scientific estimate. Please see the original sources for more detailed information. These statistics are updated annually and as new information is published.)

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Rape and Sexual Victimization Among College-Aged Females, 1995-2013 (2014).
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Crimes Against the Elderly, 2003-2013 (2014).
Department of Defense, Fiscal Year 2014 Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military (2015).
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Female Victims of Sexual Violence, 1994-2010 (2013).
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties, 2009 (2013).
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2013 (2014).

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted.

No, I'm afraid it's not abuse. For a good example of this, look at the rules for taxation of private jet flights. It is what it is, but it'll get you mad just looking at it.

But using is not abusing, right?

You guys should just accept that you lost the election and stop blaming it on Trump colluding with the Russians. You are just wasting time and taxpayers money on all this investigation.

Holman Jenkins Jr., wrote in his editorial column on Saturday (today) in the WSJ discussing this very topic.

He pointed out that the ultrawealthy generally do not pay the death tax, and that many of the world's billionaires (including those in very good heath) have spent a lot of resources over many years shielding their assets from being subject to the death tax. The type of trust the Trump family used is apparently the same type of trust the family that owns the New York Times uses.

Importantly, as of multiple decades ago, the statute of limitations expired, and as such Trump faces no criminal liability for this alleged fraud. Also, Trump has faced multiple audits over the years (given his income, it would be expected for him to be audited every year or nearly every year), and as such, it is almost certain the IRS has already reviewed these tax returns and found no issue (or any issues found have been resolved).

Probably the most interesting quote from Jenkins in the piece is "Show me a wealthy entrepreneur whose family paid the death tax of 55% (now 40%) and I will show you an entrepreneur who died unexpectedly".

After reading articles like the one the OP referenced, it makes me wonder why anyone trusts the New York Times anymore.

Thanks. I back linked those and found they were widely circulated. However they don't show "nutty" legal work at all. But I agree with you that they show opinions that you and other liberals would not like.

So you've got a conservative judge.

Hey, while we're at it, let's disqualify any SC judge wannabe that any woman has thrown an accusation at.

I suspect the IRS looked at all this very, very closely. The events occurred in 2004. The IRS has a 7 year statute of limitations. They audit Trump every year, so I heard. You don't seem to like the IRS CONCLUSIONS.

The article is heavy on smear and innuendo.

But you seem to think you can take that and translate it to "People like Trump are scum."

"Trump deserves a noose around his neck. He deserves to be hanged in public for the world to see."

Have fun.

So there are no nutty legal opinions by Kavanaugh.

Thanks.

In one of his earliest opinions, Jane Doe v. DC, 489 F.3d 376 (D.C. Cir. 2007), Judge Kavanaugh overruled U.S. District Judge Henry Kennedy’s preliminary injunction, 374 F.Supp.2d 107 (D.D.C. 2005) and later summary judgment and permanent injunction, 232 F.R.D. 18 (D.D.C. 2005) and said that even when a severely intellectually disabled person expresses that they do not want an unnecessary elective surgery, the government can still impose that surgery against their wishes without violating constitutional or statutory rights.

Brian Hundley was a 41-year old graduate of Howard University School of Dentistry studying for his boards. He was sitting in his car, unarmed, when a 6’3”, 204-pound off- duty police officer in street clothes ordered him to get out, and in short order shot and killed him with his 9mm Glock. The officer said he shot Brian because he moved his hand behind his back, but the jury specifically rejected that story in a special interrogatory verdict, and found for Brian’s surviving loved ones. In Hundley v. DC, 494 F.3d 1097 (D.C. Cir. 2007), however, Judge Kavanaugh overruled the jury and found for the officer. The opinion describes the facts from the officer’s point of view, id., despite the jury rejecting the officer’s story. As we have already been taught as 1Ls, in a situation like this, the judge is supposed to be deferential to the jury and state the facts in a light favorable to sustaining the jury’s verdict. But this early opinion was just one of Judge Kavanaugh’s regular departures from federal rules and constitutional standards.

Seventeen-year old Antonio Hester was sentenced to a maximum of ten years in prison as a minor. He had a learning disability, and DC public schools, which had been providing him special education for years, promised to continue to provide those services while he was incarcerated in Maryland, or, if they were not allowed into the prison, to provide compensatory services after his release. The Maryland prison did prevent DC from entering to provide Antonio with services, however, and DC then refused to provide services after release. U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler held that DC had backed out of a consent decree and ordered the school district to provide Antonio with compensatory services. 433 F.Supp.2d 71 (D.D.C. 2006). Judge Kavanaugh disagreed, however, and not only reversed summary judgment but – glossing over a factual dispute he had with the district court (not the job of an appellate judge) and Judge Kessler’s legal analysis – directed judgment against Antonio, erasing any chance of educational relief. Hester v. DC, 505 F.3d 1283 (D.C. Cir. 2007).

Judge Kavanaugh is no friend to liberty. In U.S. v. Bullock, 510 F.3d 342 (D.C. Cir. 2007) Kavanaugh justified ordering a person out of his car, detaining him, and searching his crotch area and under his pants by saying that the police had a “reasonable suspicion” that the car was stolen because the person “could not produce registration and could not name the car's owner,” 510 F.3d at 345–46. But the arrestee had given the car owner’s first name and his own driver’s license, and the police had confirmed that the driver’s license was clean and the car had never been reported missing or stolen. Judge Kavanaugh’s opinion upheld the arrestee’s 12-year prison sentence for possession of crack cocaine. Judge Kavanaugh consistently rules for the government in search-and-seizure. U.S. v. Glover, 681 F.3d 411 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (warrantless entry into house & a later search warrant lacking probable cause), U.S. v. Washington, 559 F.3d 573 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (giving deference to “aggressive traffic patrols” in “high crime areas”), U.S. v. Spencer, 530 F.3d 1003 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (permitting search of home), U.S. v. Askew, 529 F.3d 1119 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (dissenting from en banc opinion) (allowing police officers to partially unzip man’s jacket without consent after a pat down and later, after man was not identified by witness, to fully unzip the jacket).

When Judge Kavanaugh has ruled for a criminal defendant on a point of law, he has specifically noted that it made little to no material difference in the outcome for the defendant. U.S. v. Smith, 640 F.3d 358, 361 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (“The vacatur and remand of the felon-in-possession count does not affect Smith's term of imprisonment”). Hamdan v. United States, 696 F.3d 1238, 1257, 1257 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 2012), overruled by Al Bahlul v. United States, 767 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (“Hamdan was transferred in late 2008 to Yemen and then released there . . . . Our judgment would not preclude detention of Hamdan until the end of U.S. hostilities against al Qaeda[,] [n]or . . . any future military commission charges against Hamdan. . . [,] [n]or . . . appropriate criminal charges in civilian court.”); US v. Bostick, 791 F.3d 127, 162 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (“We affirm the judgments of conviction . . . . two of the defendants . . . are entitled to vacatur . . . and to resentencing under the advisory Sentencing Guidelines. . . The [life] sentence of the remaining defendant . . . is affirmed. We also remand for . . . technical corrections . . . .”); US v. Williams, 784 F.3d 798, 804 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (“We affirm the judgment of the District Court except that, consistent with this Court's ordinary practice in these circumstances, we remand the case so that the District Court may address Williams's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in the first instance.”); US v. Nwoye, 824 F.3d 1129, 1133–34 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (“In 2013, after the termination of her supervised release, Nwoye filed a motion to vacate her conviction . . . [w]e reverse the judgment of the District Court and remand for further proceedings.”) (note that this case has been upheld as evidence of Judge Kavanaugh’s sympathy for criminal defendants and women; it should be noted that Judge Tatel had already dissented from the court’s affirmance of the conviction years earlier, 663 F.3d 460 (D.C. Cir. 2011), and Judge Kavanaugh’s ruling happened after the defendant had completed her sentence – and he nonetheless said the case was “close.”); US v. Burnett, 827 F.3d 1108, 1112 (D.C. Cir.) (“We affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence in all respects, except that we vacate Burnett’s sentence and remand for the District Court to resentence Burnett.”);

In U.S. v. Lathern, 488 F.3d 1043 (D.C. Cir. 2007), Kavanaugh allowed the exclusion of exculpatory testimony from a defendant’s witness and expert witness in upholding an 8-year /97-month prison sentence. Other rulings in favor of long sentences include US v. Franklin, 663 F.3d 1289 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (life sentence); U.S. v. Duvall, 705 F.3d 479 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (ruling against retroactive correction of crack cocaine disparity); U.S. v. Wright, 745 F.3d 1231 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (ruling against defendant in case alleging attorney conflict of interest); U.S. v. Haight, 892 F.3d 1271 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (reversing a 12 year, 8 month sentence and vacating because it should be at least a 15 year mandatory minimum sentence); U.S. v. Knight, 824 F.3d 1105 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (rejecting speedy trial act and due process claims and a number of challenges to sentences).

By way of contrast: When Carlos Gustavo Gardellini filed a false federal tax return and illegally used offshore accounts, the federal guidelines called for a 10- to 16-month prison sentence. But Judge Kavanaugh, U.S. v. Gardellini, 545 F.3d 1089 (D.C. Cir. 2008), upheld a no-prison-time sentence with five years of probation in Belgium for this white collar criminal with his wife and child, and none of the normal probation conditions or restrictions. Judge Williams dissented. In U.S. v. Settles, 530 F.3d 920 (D.C. Cir. 2008), Judge Kavanaugh held that it was permissible for the district court to consider alleged conduct for which the defendant was acquitted in calculating a criminal sentence using the factors in the sentencing guidelines.

In Omar v. McHugh, 646 F.3d 13 (D.C. Cir. 2011), Judge Kavanaugh held that American citizens have no Constitutional habeas corpus or due process rights to judicial review of whether they are likely to be tortured if they are transferred from U.S. to (in this case) Iraqi custody.

In Harbury v. Hayden, 522 F.3d 413 (D.C. Cir. 2008), Judge Kavanaugh ruled that CIA employees who tortured and killed Guatemalans could not be held accountable in US courts for their violations of international and US law.

Over a dissent, in Jackson v. Gonzalez, 496 F.3d 703 (D.C. Cir. 2007), Kavanaugh threw out a black prison guard’s claim of discrimination, not even allowing it to go to trial, where the guard had shown evidence that he scored 98 out of 100 on qualification exams and that the prison kept positions open for years and had never hired an African American at the level of job he was seeking.

He consistently ruled for the government in FOIA cases against government transparency. Blackwell v. FBI, 646 F.3d 37 (D.C. Cir. 2012), Hodge v. FBI, 703 F.3d 575 (D.C. Cir. 2013), Sack v. DOD, 823 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir. 2016)

Against free speech when it applies to workers: In Southern New England Telephone Company v. National Labor Relations Board, 793 F.3d 93 (D.C. Cir. 2015) Kavanaugh denied NLRB’s cross-application to enforce its order for the company to permit employees working in public to wear union shirts that said “Inmate” on the front and “Prisoner of (Company)” on the back.

He has shown a comparatively huge amount of concern for trivial or corporate rights, e.g., finding the CFPB unconstitutional, PHH Corporation v. CFPB, 839 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2016), or FAA regulations against flying model airplanes near D.C. monuments unlawful. Taylor v. Huerta, 856 F.3d 1089 (D.C. Cir. 2017).

I was thinking that they were closer to K-9.

It's so odd for me as a Canadian..

Your own article says the opposite of what you claim. Citing,

The president’s parents, Fred and Mary Trump, transferred well over $1 billion in wealth to their children, which could have produced a tax bill of at least $550 million under the 55 percent tax rate then imposed on gifts and inheritances.

The Trumps paid a total of $52.2 million, or about 5 percent, tax records show.

The president declined repeated requests over several weeks to comment for this article. But a lawyer for Mr. Trump, Charles J. Harder, provided a written statement on Monday, one day after The Times sent a detailed description of its findings. “The New York Times’s allegations of fraud and tax evasion are 100 percent false, and highly defamatory,” Mr. Harder said. “There was no fraud or tax evasion by anyone. The facts upon which The Times bases its false allegations are extremely inaccurate.”

Nobody is required to organize their tax work so that the government gets the most from them....

It's even more significant when you consider it is AFAIK an unprecedented move for the legal community to do something like this.  I guess this will make a nice little black list for Kavanaugh if any of those professional that signed the document ever come before the SC!

Add to that the WaPo Op Ed from the editorial board themselves urging senators to vote no on Kananaugh (something the Op Ed board has not done in over 30 years).

And last but possibly the most important is the opinion of the 3rd longest sitting Justice of the Supreme Court in the history of the USA.  A man who is arguably one of the single most experienced people alive with respect to the SC.  Sitting and retired SC Justices rarely if ever come out and state categorically a nomination should not be elevated, I don't know of it ever happening.

But don't worry none of those people are even remotely close to being able to assess Kavanaugh's suitability as well as the legal Pundits like Quicksy and the HARD right that is over represented here in this board.