Kavanaugh hearing

[Tero]

Go Amy!
https://wtop.com/dc/2018/10/amy-schumer ... ation/amp/

[Seabass]

Some guy named John Paul Stevens does not want Kavanaugh on the SCOTUS. He must be one of them libtard cuck snowflake Demoncrats.

Retired Supreme Court Justice: Kavanaugh does not belong on high court
https://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news/re ... CimtNxpjJ/

BOCA RATON —
Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens on Thursday said that high court nominee Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, who Stevens once lauded in one of his books, does not belong on the Supreme Court.

Speaking to a crowd of retirees in Boca Raton, Stevens, 98, said Kavanaugh’s performance during a recent Senate confirmation hearing suggested that he lacks the temperament for the job.

Stevens, a lifelong Republican who is known for falling on the liberal side of several judicial rulings, praised Kavanaugh and one of his rulings on a political contribution case in the 2014 book “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution.”

“At that time, I thought (Kavanaugh) had the qualifications for the Supreme Court should he be selected,” Stevens said. “I’ve changed my views for reasons that have no relationship to his intellectual ability … I feel his performance in the hearings ultimately changed my mind.”

Commentators, Stevens said, have argued that Kavanaugh’s blistering testimony during a Sept. 27 hearing on sexual misconduct allegations demonstrated a potential for political bias should he serve on the Supreme Court.

“I think there’s merit to that criticism and I think the senators should really pay attention that,” Stevens said at a closed event hosted by retirement group, The Institute for Learning in Retirement.

Stevens, who retired in 2010 after 35 years on the bench, stands as one of the longest-serving justices in history. Nominated by President Gerald Ford, Stevens was unanimously confirmed by the Senate.

“That’s not happening any time soon,” moderator Frank Cerabino, of The Palm Beach Post, joked about a unanimous Senate confirmation.

Stevens decried the partisan politics that have shrouded the judiciary branch in recent years.

As a justice, Stevens was one of three dissenting votes in the Bush v. Gore case that ordered Florida to end the ballot recount in the disputed presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore, and effectively propelled Bush to the presidency.

“Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s presidential election, the identity of the loser is clear,” Stevens wrote in the strongly worded dissent. “It is the nation’s confidence in the judge as impartial guardian of the rule of law.”

Stevens said political leaders and the court have failed to repair the nation’s confidence in the judicial branch’s separation from the president and the Legislature.

“I think it’s worse, I regret to say it,” he said.

continued:
https://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news/re ... CimtNxpjJ/

[Seabass]

The ACLU opposes Kavanaugh. Killary must have gotten to 'em.

Why the ACLU Opposes Brett Kavanaugh's Nomination to the Supreme Court
https://www.aclu.org/blog/executive-bra ... reme-court

On Friday, Sept. 28, following the Senate Judiciary hearing at which both Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Judge Brett Kavanaugh testified, the ACLU decided to depart from its usual policy in order to oppose the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

It was not a decision we took lightly. As a matter of policy, the ACLU does not endorse or oppose presidential nominations. We have made exceptions, but those exceptions are few and far between. In our 98-year history, we have only opposed four Supreme Court nominees.
...

[Forty Two]

Some guy named John Paul Stevens does not want Kavanaugh on the SCOTUS. He must be one of them libtard cuck snowflake Demoncrats.

I, for one, have no issue with anyone expressing objection to Kavanaugh as the best person, best temperament, or best judicial philosophy for the job. Going to the merits of the candidate and the temperament are what should be done. This circus the Democrats created, though, is a travesty, and will do lasting damage to the SCOTUS and the nomination procedure. Now he must be confirmed, to send the message that this kind of activity cannot win. If it does win, then the tactic will be used, even more viciously, by asshat Republicans who will be out for blood and vengeance. Unless the Democrats put a fucking lid on the wing of their party that's all about throwing things from the peanut gallery and trapping Senators in elevators and screaming in their faces, we're going to see nothing but more of this crap.

[Forty Two]

I would stick to a simpler question, Forty Two. Let me have a go to see if 'Joe' is a rational person, or worthy of being lumped in with pErvinalia and Tero...

Joe, what kind of evidence could change your mind about this issue?

Just taking them in order. The writer of the article says Kavanaugh is clearly lying - provably lying -when he says he wasn't at any party like that described by Ford. I think the author is being disingenuous, leaving out that Kavanaugh went on to talk about going to many parties in high school, all of which can be said to be gatherings of friends and drinking beer and partying. To suggest that what Kavanaugh meant by "I didn't go to a party like Ford described..." means he never went to people's houses and drank beer with them is a bit ridiculous. And, that was the second point the author made. The first was the Ludington allegation that because he saw Kavanaugh drink heavily, that Kavanaugh was lying when he said he did not "black out."

That's the rigorous logic presented. I've been told I wasn't willing to address it point by point. I've now done it a couple of times. I wouldn't mind it if Joe would set me straight here, or agree with me. Neither would upset me.

[Joe]

What do you think Kavanaugh lied about? Can you provide a quote or paraphrase of a single one? The article didn't.

Forty Two, you have a whole excerpt making the case for Kavanaugh lying, and you calling it pathetic and complaining about its size doesn't do a thing to discredit it. Moreover, given the number of times the except directly quotes Kavanaugh's testimony, your last assertion is demonstrably false.

It isn't false because, as I pointed out in my detailed response, the things that Kavanaugh actually said were not refuted. I went point by point. You're not bothering to look at it - which is why I would like to try to make this easier to handle - which "lie" from the article would you like to start with? Let's take it one at a time.

Since you're the fan of point-by-point rebuttals, I suggest you take that excerpt, break it down, and provide a counterargument to each specific case the author documents.

I did, in my lengthy response. You aren't bothering to address any points at all. You just want to hold up the article and wave it around. The first point - the Ludington allegation - that doesn't counter anything Kavanaugh said, and the article does not quote him on that point. Ludington says Kavanaugh was a big drinker and got into this dispute in the bar. The article does not quote Kavanauch denying it. The only thing Kavanaugh denied is being a black out drunk. The article provides no refutation of that. It's the equivocation that is common on this issue - "so and so saw Kavanaugh getting drunk at parties!!! See Kavanaugh lied!" But, Kavanaugh repeatedly said he got drunk at parties. He just said he didn't black out, which is totally different.

I doubt you will do this, because you aren't able to challenge it on substance, but perhaps you will surprise me by rising to the occasion.

Did you not read my post? I mean - I'll be happy to go over it, if you'll participate in the conversation.

Then I can point you at the other half of the excerpt.

Point away.

I read your post, but we agreed to reject unsupported assertions, so why should I bother with your "lengthy" response? I know you think a lot of your opinion, but I don't. I don't even trust that you got the author's arguments right.

I also don't care that you want to make it easier to handle. It's not easy to refute precisely because of the preponderance of examples and extensiveness of evidence and reasoning. It's clear Robinson meant it to be that way, and I guess that's why Seabass posted it.

If you want to make a serious case, you need to put on your big boy pants and do the hard work.

Here's the rest. Enjoy!

To conclude Kavanaugh’s implausible alcohol-related denials and evasions, here’s a particularly striking exchange with Amy Klobuchar:

KLOBUCHAR: So in your case, you have said, here and other places, that you never drank so much that you didn’t remember what happened. But yet, we have heard — not under oath, but we have heard your college roommate say that you did drink frequently. These are in news reports. That you would sometimes be belligerent. Another classmate said it’s not credible for you to say you didn’t have memory lapses. So drinking is one thing.

KAVANAUGH: I don’t think — I — I actually don’t think… the second quote’s correct. On the first quote, if you wanted, I provided some material that’s still redacted about the situation with the freshman year roommate, and I don’t really want to repeat that in a public hearing, but just so you know, there were three people in a room, Dave White, Jamie Roach (ph) and me, and it was a contentious situation where Jamie did not like Dave White. I was — at all, and I’m in this…

Well, the second quote is correct. It’s verbatim from Lynn Brooks, who said “it’s not credible for him to say that he has had no memory lapses.” The second bit is impossible to assess. He insists that there’s some publicly unavailable material that sheds light on relationship between his roommates. (Elsewhere, when he is questioned again about his roommate’s firsthand observations, he says again that it’s all explained in the publicly unavailable material. Which is quite convenient, since this is one of the more damning quotes—and also, let’s note, a quote from a man, who is less likely to be treated as crazy or delusional, because we live in a sexist society where an indignant man who tells obvious lies will be believed over a scared and consistent woman.) His attempts at further explanation are bizarre:

KAVANAUGH: So Dave — so Dave White came back from — from home one weekend, and Jamie Roach had moved all his furniture…

KLOBUCHAR: OK. OK.

KAVANAUGH: … out into the — out into the courtyard.

KLOBUCHAR: OK.

KAVANAUGH: And so he walks in, and so that’s your source on that, so there’s some old…

KLOBUCHAR: OK, so drinking is one thing.

KAVANAUGH: There — and there’s much more. Look at the redacted portion of what I said. I don’t want to repeat that in a public hearing.

What?? Jamie says he saw Brett drink a lot and get aggressive. Brett says in response that Jamie didn’t like a third guy, Dave, and once moved his furniture into the courtyard. It’s all explained somewhere else. It totally makes sense. Don’t make me repeat it.

Senator Klobuchar moves on.

KLOBUCHAR: OK. Drinking is one thing, but the concern is about truthfulness, and in your written testimony, you said sometimes you had too many drinks. Was there ever a time when you drank so much that you couldn’t remember what happened, or part of what happened the night before?

KAVANAUGH: No, I — no. I remember what happened, and I think you’ve probably had beers, Senator, and — and so I…

KLOBUCHAR: So you’re saying there’s never been a case where you drank so much that you didn’t remember what happened the night before, or part of what happened.

KAVANAUGH: It’s — you’re asking about, you know, blackout. I don’t know. Have you?

KLOBUCHAR: Could you answer the question, Judge? I just — so you — that’s not happened. Is that your answer?

KAVANAUGH: Yeah, and I’m curious if you have.

This was a moment of childish petulance so egregious that Kavanaugh had to apologize to Senator Klobuchar after a recess. Elsewhere he did explicitly deny having blacked out, but answering questions with questions like this is not what an honest witness does. There are no moments comparable to this one in Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony.

I am sorry to keep piling up instances of perjury, but there are so many of them to go through. Let us turn to two more lies, which both appear minor but have important implications. First is the case of poor Renate.

Renate Dolphin was a contemporary of Kavanaugh’s when he was at Georgetown Prep and she was at school nearby, and initially signed a letter supporting him. In Kavanaugh’s yearbook, some of the football players, including Kavanaugh, used the cryptic phrase “Renate Alumni.” Two ex-Georgetown Prep classmates told the New York Times that boys were bragging (truthfully or not, probably not) about sex with Renate. Sean Hagan said that Kavanaugh and his teammates “were very disrespectful, at least verbally, with Renate. I can’t express how disgusted I am with them, then and now.” Dolphin herself didn’t know about the yearbook page when she signed the support letter, and when she discovered it was horrified:

I learned about these yearbook pages only a few days ago… I don’t know what ‘Renate Alumnus’ actually means. I can’t begin to comprehend what goes through the minds of 17-year-old boys who write such things, but the insinuation is horrible, hurtful and simply untrue. I pray their daughters are never treated this way.

But instead of admitting that they had been terrible to Renate, four of the football players said that the references to her in the yearbook “were intended to allude to innocent dates or dance partners.” Kavanaugh himself blamed the dirty-minded circus media for taking a sweet tribute and construing it as something obscene:

“That yearbook reference was clumsily intended to show affection, and that she was one of us. But in this circus, the media’s interpreted the term is related to sex. It was not related to sex.” … “She’s a good person. And to have her named dragged through this hearing is a joke. And, really, an embarrassment.”

Renate herself certainly didn’t interpret it as a display of friendship when she found out about it. But if you’re credulous enough to believe Kavanaugh’s denial, the definitive proof that it’s horseshit is that elsewhere in the yearbook, one of the boys has printed the following charming ditty:

“You need a date / and it’s getting late / so don’t hesitate / to call Renate.”

There can be no doubt that not only were the boys trying to obliquely call Renate a slut (whether or not any sex actually transpired is irrelevant), but Kavanaugh is now rather despicably trying to pose as the defender of a woman he unrepentantly humiliated.

Some Republicans tried to suggest that scrutiny of Kavanaugh’s yearbook was grasping at straws. Here we are trying to make sense of nonsense scrawlings from some silly kids in a musty old book. Here’s Lindsey Graham: “if we want to sit here and talk about whether a Supreme Court nomination should be based on a high school yearbook page, I think that’s taken us to a new level of absurdity.” But as with Ford’s allegation itself, what’s relevant is not just what happened then but what is happening now: Kavanaugh is lying. The evidence from the yearbook bears on the credibility of his statements about his character in high school, and Kavanaugh himself made his character a central part of his defense and his argument for why Ford should not be believed. Kavanaugh’s supporters can play dumb and suggest examining the yearbook is absurd, but being in the keg club and objectifying and demeaning women is evidence that his “I was always either at the soup kitchen or buried in my schoolbooks” defense is an act.

Here, Richard Blumenthal tries to explain to Kavanaugh why small lies to the Senate matter:

BLUMENTHAL: [In law, there’s a Latin phrase that means] ‘false in one thing, false in everything.’ Meaning in jury instructions that [prosecutors tell] the jury that they can disbelieve a witness if they find them to be false in one thing. So the core of why we’re here today really is credibility. Let me talk…

KAVANAUGH: But the core of why we’re here is an allegation for which the four witnesses present have all said it didn’t happen.

BLUMENTHAL: Let me ask you about Renate Dolphin who lives in Connecticut. She thought these yearbook statements were, quote, “Horrible, hurtful and simply untrue.” end quote, because Renate Alumnus clearly implied some boast of sexual conquest. And that’s the reason that you apologized to her, correct?

KAVANAUGH: That’s false, speaking about the yearbook and she — she said she and I never had any sexual interaction. So your question is false and I’ve addressed that in the opening statement. And so, your question is based on a false premise and really does great harm to her. I don’t know why you’re bringing this up, frankly, doing great harm to her. By even bringing her name up here is really unfortunate.

The first exchange is fascinating. Blumenthal explains to Kavanaugh why it’s important to look at little things, like his lies about the yearbook. If someone is willing to say one false thing under oath, it undermines their credibility on everything, or at least means the “oath” part means nothing to them. Kavanaugh’s response is to… lie under oath, by saying yet again that “the four witnesses present have all said it didn’t happen.” (I always get irony wrong, but I think this counts as irony.)

But then look at how Kavanaugh responds to the specific question. Blumenthal asks whether the reason Kavanaugh apologized to Renate was that the remark was not a tribute to a friend but a nasty innuendo. Kavanaugh replies by pointing out that Renate said they never had any sexual interaction, “so your question is false.” Then he becomes righteously indignant on Renate’s behalf, presenting himself as the protector of the woman about whom fellow members of the “Renate Aluminus” club said, let us recall: “You need a date / and it’s getting late / so don’t hesitate / to call Renate.”

Here, not only is Kavanaugh obviously lying, but he’s incredibly bad at it. He can’t give a plausible answer to the question, so he pivots to bluster. Remember, if you’re ever stuck up the creek without an argument, you can always launch into a grandiloquent “HOW DARE YOU.”

Shall we do one more lie? I know it’s getting late, and there is more that needs to be covered. But let’s talk about the Devil’s Triangle. This is common slang for a threesome between one woman and two men. Kavanaugh’s yearbook page contains the phrase, which presumably seemed amusing to sneak into print. When he was questioned about it, however, Kavanaugh replied:

WHITEHOUSE: Devil’s triangle?

KAVANAUGH: Drinking game.

WHITEHOUSE: How’s it played?

KAVANAUGH: Three glasses in a triangle.

WHITEHOUSE: And?

KAVANAUGH: You ever played quarters?

WHITEHOUSE: No (ph).

KAVANAUGH: OK. It’s a quarters game.

Senator Whitehouse (of course) then moved on. But Kavanaugh’s testimony is more significant than someone who hadn’t heard the phrase before might think. That’s because nobody seems to have heard of such a drinking game. It doesn’t exist. Kavanaugh made up a fictitious game in order to sustain his phony image as a high schooler who knew nothing about sex and therefore could never have attempted to rape a woman (or, as Ford alleges, coerce her into a threesome, sometimes called a “Devil’s triangle.”) Kavanaugh’s falsehood here was blatant, and a supporter rushed to edit the Wikipedia page for the term to fabricate the existence of such a game and pretend it had existed all along.

Let me turn to my colleague Pete Davis, who went to high school in the D.C. area and knows what the term means:

It’s one of the most blatant lies I’ve ever seen. It’s special among the lies because it’s not a simple denial. It’s a completely fake game that he invented whole cloth. Every guy who went to my D.C.-area high school knows what “devil’s triangle” means. I’m sure Brett Kavanaugh knows what it means, too. There is no reference to this “drinking game” on the entire internet or in the entire history of books written in English. There are, however, tons of references to the other act, an act that a high school jock would be into joking about. And it’s relevant to the crime because it’s literally what Ford is accusing Kavanaugh and Judge of attempting to do.

So we know he was lying when he pretended he didn’t know it was a threesome. Does this affect how much we should trust Kavanaugh when he says he didn’t try to force Christine Ford into one and was innocent in all sexual matters? I’ll let you decide that one.

Kavanaugh’s prepared testimony offers five core defenses against Ford’s allegations, which he enumerates.

First, he says, “let’s start with my career.” Kavanaugh proceeds to list the various respectable positions he has held over the last three decades. He details all the background checks he has gone through, saying he has been “thoroughly vetted.” And yet, he says, “throughout that entire time, throughout my 53 years and 7 months on this Earth, until last week, no one ever accused me of any kind of sexual misconduct.” (Note here a small bonus lie: Ford alerted the U.S. Senate about her allegation in July, not “last week.”)
Second, he says, consider “specifics.” Here he cites the uncorroborated nature of Ford’s account, the fact that Christine Ford did not go to a Catholic school, the lie that the allegation is “refuted,” etc. We’ve gone through all of this.
Third is the part about not living especially near the country club, and the fact that Christine Ford can’t remember who took her from the country club to the party.
Fourth, he says, look at the calendars. We’ve looked at the calendars.
Fifth, he says, consider his character. Ford’s allegation is “radically inconsistent with my record and my character from my youth to the present day.” This is where he discusses church and virginity and scholarly diligence. But he also has a long discussion of his public history with women. He talks about all his female friends. He quotes from three supportive texts he has received from women. He cites his history of giving opportunities to female law clerks, and the support they have shown him.
Much of the other text in Kavanaugh’s testimony is angry wind about how his life has been ruined, disgrace has been brought upon the august body of the Senate, the nation is going to hell in a handbasket, etc. Look, then, how little this all adds up to. When he addressed the specifics, he dissembled or stalled until the questioning Senator moved on or ran out of time. His character-based defense requires us to swallow obvious falsehoods.

What of his other main points? His distinguished career on the bench and his long record of employing women and being friends with women and coaching girl’s basketball and such. As to his time as a judge, I could mention that his record of judicial opinions suggest he is a man devoid of human empathy. But his atrocious jurisprudence seems to have become all but irrelevant to people at this point. Instead, I’d point out that this statement ignores the entire flood of concealed abuse by powerful people that has come out over the course of the MeToo movement. “If this allegation was true why didn’t it become a scandal earlier in my career?” is what we might call the “Cosby defense” or the “Weinstein defense.” We know the answer to that question: because women aren’t believed, as evidenced by, well, the entire thing that’s happening right now in which Republicans are overlooking Kavanaugh’s endless disqualifying statements and calling a credible accusation a witch hunt.

Kavanaugh says that as a federal judge, he has been investigated up and down. You know who else was a federal judge? Alex Kozinski, the judge Kavanaugh himself clerked for, who turned out to have engaged in decades of sexual harassment without consequence and who even assaulted a woman on live television without it impeding his career. Kavanaugh is not stupid, yet he defends himself with lines like “if such as thing had a happened, it would’ve been the talk of campus,” even though it definitely wouldn’t since frat brothers engage in casual disgusting behavior all the time. And they get away with it, as Kavanaugh might be expected to have noticed, because of people like Kavanaugh’s former employer Ken Starr, who failed to investigate serious campus rape allegations when he served as a university president.

Kavanaugh must also know full well that men get away with sexual misbehavior for innumerable reasons: They can sue you, they can publicly discredit you, they can cause you to be inundated with death threats, they can make you a national punchline, they can beat the shit out of you. The reason women don’t report is precisely because they know uncorroborated allegations will be dismissed! They know that “I am a federal judge, therefore I would not do this” somehow actually flies as a defense in the United States Senate!

Kavanaugh cites all the many women who say he’s wonderful, and his record of promoting women. But while this is respectable, we can’t treat it the way Kavanaugh wants us to treat it, i.e., as evidence that Ford’s accusation is ludicrous. How could an abuser be a public champion of women’s causes? I don’t know, ask Harvey Weinstein. Ask Eric Schneiderman. Both had prominent women who would have written them glowing recommendation letters! I’m not dismissing the “character evidence” Kavanaugh wants us to consider. But I am saying that he’s trying to convince us of something we shouldn’t accept, namely that having lots of women support you means it’s outlandish to think that you could privately have abused someone.

As for Kavanaugh’s legions of devoted female employees, well, this should go without saying: “I’m not a sexist because I have many female subordinates” should get you laughed out of the room. (Imagine Bill Clinton bragging about the female-friendly gender ratio of his White House internship program!) In fact, there are already female Yale Law graduates who say they were told in applying for clerkships that Kavanaugh liked his female clerks and he liked them with that Certain Look. Brett Kavanaugh may have treated every single female employee with the utmost respect. But their testimonials cannot be used to brand Ford a madwoman.

Alright, so Kavanaugh is a proven serial liar whose shocked, innocent presentation was obviously an act. What of Ford’s testimony? If we care about getting to the actual truth, we have to apply equal scrutiny to both sides. Ford cannot be believed merely because accepting her allegations as true would be politically advantageous. If she isn’t believable, the left needs to acknowledge that. But, well, read her testimony for yourself. Watch her answers to questions. See if you see the same tendencies that I’ve shown Kavanaugh demonstrated. See if you see tactics like changing the subject, answering a question with a question, playing dumb, bursting into tears and accusing critics of waging a conspiracy to destroy you, fabricating nonexistent corroboration, deleting inconvenient facts, and issuing an angry how-dare-you-sir every time things look dicey for you. All of this, as we have seen at exhaustive (and exhausting) length, is present throughout Kavanaugh’s testimony. Go and find similar reasons to doubt Ford.

Now, there are some attempts to argue that Ford was more credible than Kavanaugh that I find unpersuasive. In particular, many have criticized Kavanaugh for being emotional and aggressive. The New York Times began its editorial about why to believe Ford by contrasting the two witness’ tones, saying that “where Christine Blasey Ford was calm and dignified, Brett Kavanaugh was volatile and belligerent.” I do not think this should make much of a difference in itself. “Tone policing” is often a way to diminish the opinions of people who happen to be emotional for good reason. And if Kavanaugh was innocent, he might well find himself uncontrollably sad, angry, and embarrassed. Instead of looking at the manner in which the two witnesses spoke, we need to look at the facts of what they actually said.

What most impressed me about Ford was not that she stayed calm, but that she gave the answers an honest person would tend to give. By this I mean that she did not, as Kavanaugh did, try to avoid conceding even the slightest fact that might appear to affirm the other side’s story. Instead, she freely admitted facts that she knew would “help” Kavanaugh. She offered corrections to her original letter, even though she knew that these could be construed as “changing her story.”

FORD: In the second paragraph, where it says this — “the assault occurred in a suburban Maryland area home”… “at a gathering that included me and four others,” I can’t guarantee that there weren’t a few other people there, but they are not in my purview of my memory.

MITCHELL: Would it be fair to say there were at least four others?

FORD: Yes.

MITCHELL: OK. What’s the second correction?

FORD: Oh, OK. The next sentence begins with “Kavanaugh physically pushed me into the bedroom,” I would say I can’t promise that Mark Judge didn’t assist with that. I don’t know. I was pushed from behind, so I don’t want to put that solely on him.

That second correction is a fact that could actually reduce Kavanaugh’s role in the attack. It is moments like these, where Ford does the opposite of what Kavanaugh does (i.e., concedes weak spots rather than issuing implausible denials), that improve my confidence in what she is saying.

But I am not actually trying here to prove that Christine Blasey Ford is telling the truth, even though I don’t think Kavanaugh or the Republicans have produced good arguments against her. The idea that her testimony is disproven by the calendars or the witness statements is false. The idea that Kavanaugh is an honest upstanding person who was a gentleman in high school is false. The primary Republican argument is that Ford cannot prove it, but it is very hard to prove a crime like this. I’m mainly interested, though, in showing that Kavanaugh isn’t telling the truth. Not because I am unfairly giving him higher scrutiny, but because he’s the one being considered for the Supreme Court, and if he’s lying, that should be the end of the issue as far as the Senate is concerned. Out he goes!

The Democratic senators were predictably useless in trying to figure out the answer to the simple question of whether Kavanaugh was telling lies. They left important questions unanswered, failed to pursue promising threads, and seemed to spend most of their questioning time arguing about whether and how there should be an FBI investigation into the allegations. But while the FBI investigation may turn up additional useful information, at this point there is absolutely no need for it unless Christine Blasey Ford wants it. It’s completely unnecessary in determining whether Brett Kavanaugh should be on the Supreme Court; even the very limited questions already asked of Kavanaugh have yielded disqualifying answers. Kavanaugh is lying, it’s provable, and that’s all there is to it. Unless you think it’s acceptable to have someone on the federal bench who treats duly sworn oaths as meaningless, the guy shouldn’t be holding any office.

I have mostly left out a significant fact here, which is that there are two other sexual misconduct allegations against Kavanaugh. I haven’t covered this much because it wasn’t the subject of the hearing, but it’s incredibly important additional evidence! Deborah Ramirez says that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her when they were Yale undergraduates, and recalls him laughing as he zipped his pants. The New Yorker spoke to a Yale classmate who “confirmed having learned of the incident — and Judge Kavanaugh’s alleged role in it — within a day or two after it happened.” Ramirez’s general reputation for honesty is backed up by other classmates, and Kavanaugh’s own ex-roommate has said he believes her. Swetnick’s accusations, which include what she describes as incidents of “gang rape,” were dismissed out of hand by Republicans as both unfounded and too lurid and extreme to be true. (A future federal judge would never have been capable of such acts!) But while all we have to go on is her sworn affidavit, it’s worth remembering (1) that it’s a very serious matter to make these accusations in a sworn affidavit, and Swetnick is exposing herself to considerable legal penalties if she turns out to be lying and (2) that we actually do have a witness who says Mark Judge told her personally that he and other boys had taken turns having sex with a drunk woman. Judge’s ex-girlfriend, Elizabeth Rasor, said that she couldn’t “stand by and watch him lie” and suggest Georgetown Prep was a sexually innocent place. “Mark told me a very different story,” she said.

As I say, Swetnick’s allegations are indeed incredibly serious and it’s reasonable to demand evidence beyond her word before accepting them (though not before investigating them). But given that, in Kavanaugh’s own words, “what happened at Georgetown Prep stays at Georgetown Prep—and that’s a good thing” (which is a kidding-but-not-kidding way of confirming that there is a code of silence around misbehavior), there is no reason to dismiss them merely because they stayed under wraps until Kavanaugh became a national figure.

Let’s remember how the National Review, America’s leading organ of conservative thought, responded to Kavanaugh’s testimony:

Mark it in your memory: 3:10 p.m., September 27, 2018. If what Kavanaugh had to say sealed his confirmation (and I think it did), and if Kavanaugh serves as a resolute constitutionalist on the Supreme Court (and I think he will), his speech did what so many political speeches try to do but don’t come close to accomplishing: It changed the course of American history.

In the morning, writer Kyle Smith said, Ford had seemed credible. But after lunch, the great and esteemed judge took his seat, and with fierce logical precision and booming righteous indignation, laid the matter to rest once and for all. No more would there be a question: It would be a travesty of justice not to appoint this man to the Supreme Court.

What does it say about this country that this is the state of our discourse? That Kavanaugh even stands any chance of being made one of the most powerful figures in the American government, with control over life and liberty? That a man like this is even a judge? He went before the United States Senate and showed total contempt for his vow to tell the truth. He attempted to portray a highly esteemed doctor as a crazy person, by consistently misrepresenting the evidence. He treated the public like we were idiots, like we wouldn’t notice as he pretended he was ralphing during Beach Week from too many jalapeños, as he feigned ignorance about sex slang, as he misread his own meticulously-kept 1982 summer calendar, as he replied to questions about his drinking habits by talking about church, as he suggested there are no alcoholics at Yale, as he denied knowing who “Bart O’Kavanaugh” could possibly be based on, as he declared things refuted that weren’t actually refuted, as he claimed witnesses said things they didn’t say, as he failed to explain why nearly a dozen Yale classmates said he drank heavily, as he invented an imaginary drinking game to avoid admitting he had the mind of a sports jock in high school, as he said Ford had only accused him last week, as he responded to his roommate’s eyewitness statement with an incoherent story about furniture, as he pretended Bethesda wasn’t five miles wide, as he insisted Renate should be flattered by the ditty about how easy she was, as he declared that distinguished federal judges don’t commit sexual misconduct even though he had clerked for exactly such a judge.

And what does it say about us, and our political system, that he might well get away with it?

If you appreciated this article, please consider making a donation, purchasing a subscription, or supporting our podcast on Patreon. Current Affairs is not for profit and carries no outside advertising. We are an independent media institution funded entirely by subscribers and small donors, and we depend on you in order to continue to produce high-quality work.

A video to accompany this article can be found here. You can read my analysis of Kavanaugh’s actual judicial record here. My new book, The Current Affairs Rules For Life, systematically dismantles a series of conservative arguments against the left.

NOTE: I am certain I got a small fact wrong here and there over the course of this article. If you see a little stack of corrections appear at the bottom, do not be surprised. I did the best I could and have sources for everything, but it’s possible I misinterpreted something. In the original (unpublished) draft, for instance, I misinterpreted an ambiguous line in this Washington Post article, and thought Kavanaugh and Ford’s fathers were both members of the exclusive Columbia Country Club when they were in fact both members of the exclusive Burning Tree Golf Club. I caught that before publication, but it’s not impossible that there were other slip-ups. I am relying on the Washington Post’s transcripts of the hearings so I apologize if any of my criticisms of Kavanaugh are based on a transcription error.

[Corrections: This article originally said Renate Dolphin was a classmate of Kavanaugh’s rather than a contemporary. They attended differing nearby single-sex schools. It also originally mixed up the names of Swisher and Swetnick. I have updated a sentence that said the “sole” Republican argument was that the allegations were unsubstantiated, because this is not the case. There are other arguments, such as the inconsistence of Ford’s therapy notes and certain discrepancies in her accounts. I have therefore changed the word to “main” in order to be fair.]

[Brian Peacock]

Some guy named John Paul Stevens does not want Kavanaugh on the SCOTUS. He must be one of them libtard cuck snowflake Demoncrats.

I, for one, have no issue with anyone expressing objection to Kavanaugh as the best person, best temperament, or best judicial philosophy for the job. Going to the merits of the candidate and the temperament are what should be done. This circus the Democrats created, though, is a travesty, and will do lasting damage to the SCOTUS and the nomination procedure. Now he must be confirmed, to send the message that this kind of activity cannot win. If it does win, then the tactic will be used, even more viciously, by asshat Republicans who will be out for blood and vengeance. Unless the Democrats put a fucking lid on the wing of their party that's all about throwing things from the peanut gallery and trapping Senators in elevators and screaming in their faces, we're going to see nothing but more of this crap.

I think what Judge Stevens is hinting at here is that a Supreme Court judge is supposed to be independently minded and above the political fray, but that Mr Kavanaigh's performance at last Thursday's senate hearing demonstrated that not only is he not above the political fray but that he's embedded up to his neck in it and clearly in alliance with the Republican party against the Democratic party.

I think it's far too simple and convenient to lay the blame for all of the issues with Mr Kavanaigh's selection process at the feet of Democrats alone, as if neither the majority Republican committee members, nor the GOP itself, carry any responsibility for the proceedings and are merely helpless, powerless pawns without control in the face of Democrat machinations. Indeed, it is the very simplicity and convenience of such a a narrative, one which exonerates Republicans as an operating premise, which marks it as errant while showing that factual falsity is being deliberately applied purely for political expediency. That you would affirm that narrative without question (and will no doubt do so again in response to this post) is not surprising at this point - US politics is far more than partisan or polarised at the moment: it's become fundamentally sectarian.

[Brian Peacock]

[Joe]

I would stick to a simpler question, Forty Two. Let me have a go to see if 'Joe' is a rational person, or worthy of being lumped in with pErvinalia and Tero...

Joe, what kind of evidence could change your mind about this issue?

Which issue Cunt? Forty Two's ineffective arguments? Obviously, effective arguments. Here's an example:

Shall we do one more lie? I know it’s getting late, and there is more that needs to be covered. But let’s talk about the Devil’s Triangle. This is common slang for a threesome between one woman and two men. Kavanaugh’s yearbook page contains the phrase, which presumably seemed amusing to sneak into print. When he was questioned about it, however, Kavanaugh replied:

WHITEHOUSE: Devil’s triangle?

KAVANAUGH: Drinking game.

WHITEHOUSE: How’s it played?

KAVANAUGH: Three glasses in a triangle.

WHITEHOUSE: And?

KAVANAUGH: You ever played quarters?

WHITEHOUSE: No (ph).

KAVANAUGH: OK. It’s a quarters game.

Senator Whitehouse (of course) then moved on. But Kavanaugh’s testimony is more significant than someone who hadn’t heard the phrase before might think. That’s because nobody seems to have heard of such a drinking game. It doesn’t exist. Kavanaugh made up a fictitious game in order to sustain his phony image as a high schooler who knew nothing about sex and therefore could never have attempted to rape a woman (or, as Ford alleges, coerce her into a threesome, sometimes called a “Devil’s triangle.”) Kavanaugh’s falsehood here was blatant, and a supporter rushed to edit the Wikipedia page for the term to fabricate the existence of such a game and pretend it had existed all along.

Let me turn to my colleague Pete Davis, who went to high school in the D.C. area and knows what the term means:

It’s one of the most blatant lies I’ve ever seen. It’s special among the lies because it’s not a simple denial. It’s a completely fake game that he invented whole cloth. Every guy who went to my D.C.-area high school knows what “devil’s triangle” means. I’m sure Brett Kavanaugh knows what it means, too. There is no reference to this “drinking game” on the entire internet or in the entire history of books written in English. There are, however, tons of references to the other act, an act that a high school jock would be into joking about. And it’s relevant to the crime because it’s literally what Ford is accusing Kavanaugh and Judge of attempting to do.

So we know he was lying when he pretended he didn’t know it was a threesome. Does this affect how much we should trust Kavanaugh when he says he didn’t try to force Christine Ford into one and was innocent in all sexual matters? I’ll let you decide that one.

It's true Devil's Triangle is slang for a threesome, at least according to Urban Dictionary, but Kavanaugh's version has support from former classmates.

Two men who went to college with one of Kavanaugh’s high-school classmates (and knew Kavanaugh socially as well in the ’80s and ’90s) say this classmate taught them a drinking game with that name. That classmate and three others write separately that they made up the game during their time at Georgetown Prep:

“Devil’s Triangle” was a drinking game we came up with in high school. It was a variation on the game “Quarters.” When we played “Devil’s Triangle,” four people sat at a table. On the table, three small glasses of beer were arranged next to one another to form a triangle. Each of the four participants took turns being the “shooter.” The shooter attempted to bounce a quarter into one of the glasses.

So, six people have now said publicly that they played a drinking game called Devil’s Triangle that originated at Kavanaugh’s high school. Time to retire that one.

So, maybe Kavanaugh didn't lie about that, eh?

See the evidence, supported by links. That takes one little piece of a 10,000 word article, and puts it in doubt. Given that I always thought Devil's Triangle was a place a lot of planes crashed, and that Kavanaugh was under oath, I'm inclined to change my mind on that one.

The thing is, there's a lot more, and Forty Two doesn't want to do the work. Since, I'm not his momma, I don't feel like helping him.

Make sense?

[Seabass]

Some guy named John Paul Stevens does not want Kavanaugh on the SCOTUS. He must be one of them libtard cuck snowflake Demoncrats.

I, for one, have no issue with anyone expressing objection to Kavanaugh as the best person, best temperament, or best judicial philosophy for the job. Going to the merits of the candidate and the temperament are what should be done. This circus the Democrats created, though, is a travesty, and will do lasting damage to the SCOTUS and the nomination procedure. Now he must be confirmed, to send the message that this kind of activity cannot win. If it does win, then the tactic will be used, even more viciously, by asshat Republicans who will be out for blood and vengeance. Unless the Democrats put a fucking lid on the wing of their party that's all about throwing things from the peanut gallery and trapping Senators in elevators and screaming in their faces, we're going to see nothing but more of this crap.

I think what Judge Stevens is hinting at here is that a Supreme Court judge is supposed to be independently minded and above the political fray, but that Mr Kavanaigh's performance at last Thursday's senate hearing demonstrated that not only is he not above the political fray but that he's embedded up to his neck in it and clearly in alliance with the Republican party against the Democratic party.

I think it's far too simple and convenient to lay the blame for all of the issues with Mr Kavanaigh's selection process at the feet of Democrats alone, as if neither the majority Republican committee members, nor the GOP itself, carry any responsibility for the proceedings and are metely helpless, powerless pawns without control in the face of Democrat machinations. Indeed, it is the very simplicity and convenience of such a a narrative, one which exonerates Republicans as an operating premise, which marks it as errant while showing that factual falsity is being deliberately applied purely for political expediency. That you would affirm that narrative without question (and will no doubt do so again in response to this post) is not surprising at this point - US politics is far more than partisan or polarised at the moment: it's become fundamentally sectarian.

Do you ever get angry, Brian? Annoyed? Irritated? I don't think I've ever seen you get even the slightest bit wound up. Your ability to remain calm in the face of breathtaking idiocy is truly remarkable.

[Brian Peacock]

I get a bit sarcy sometimes.

[Jason]

"Video is unavailable"

[Brian Peacock]

Sorry. Might have to set your VPN to the US.

[Cunt]

Joe, what kind of evidence could change your mind about this issue?

Just taking them in order. The writer of the article says Kavanaugh is clearly lying - provably lying -when he says he wasn't at any party like that described by Ford. I think the author is being disingenuous, leaving out that Kavanaugh went on to talk about going to many parties in high school, all of which can be said to be gatherings of friends and drinking beer and partying. To suggest that what Kavanaugh meant by "I didn't go to a party like Ford described..." means he never went to people's houses and drank beer with them is a bit ridiculous. And, that was the second point the author made. The first was the Ludington allegation that because he saw Kavanaugh drink heavily, that Kavanaugh was lying when he said he did not "black out."

That's the rigorous logic presented. I've been told I wasn't willing to address it point by point. I've now done it a couple of times. I wouldn't mind it if Joe would set me straight here, or agree with me. Neither would upset me.
[/quote]

If you look carefully, Joe answered clearly. By leaving no answer to my question, we can only conclude that NO evidence could change his mind.

I guess it isn't really 'his mind', but an article he found that is long enough to torment you with. No matter how the testimony of the accuser falls apart, he will remain fixed on any perceived flaw in Kavanaugh's life.

I wonder how much time he put into examining the claims of the one making the accusation...my guess is that he would #believeaccusers or whatever the social media justice term is this week.

I guess I have some perspective because I don't care about the SCOTUS as much as you. I care mainly about how unsupported claims are accepted, if the claimant has the 'right' genitals.

Maybe the thing to do is to pit dems against reps, allowing them to fight all classy (like they have been) and see which prospective judges refuse to get partisan...but I am guessing that's a bit niave. The appointment IS a political game. Maybe it should be bloodsport-based.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Jeez what those Democrats are doing is really really terrible. And you know what? It could get worse. If they were to take the US Senate, they could simply refuse to hold any hearings at all for a Trump nominee to the Supreme Court. Oh, the howls of outrage that would rise up then.