OK, here’s the thing. You seem to be operating under the impression that the world is a black and white place. You are probably an engineer or something like that. But meanwhile, most things in the world are grey and we are required to use critical analysis of the available data in order to reach a conclusion. That’s what juries do every single day; it’s pretty rare that cases that are open and shut go to trial. We send people to jail and to death row all the time based on less conclusive evidence than we have here.
But before I go further into that, I want to ask why you keep evading the Justice Stevens angle? You appear to be operating from the supposition that unless a crime could be conclusively proven, that Kavanaugh was owed this job (for life.) Have you ever once in your life been owed a job, much less one than can’t be taken away once bestowed? I do not comprehend this mindset — which is how we got into this discussion in the first place since it was part of the OPs premise.
So, let’s go back and look at some of the data available for critical analysis:
You’ve made some weird leaps of conclusion around the terms from the year book. It is not in question whether or not Kavanaugh ever actually participated in a “devil’s triangle” or actually had sex with Renata Dolphin. What is relevant is that he lied about both of those things because they tended to make him look bad. Renate didn’t have to have it explained to her what those comments meant. She had initially supported Kavanaugh until she was shocked and hurt to realize he talked about her in such demeaning terms. Other boys who considered themselves “Renate alumnius (sic) had a nasty little poem about her implying she was a slut on some of their yearbook pages. Whether she actually even kissed any of them is not the point. This speaks to his view of girls at the time and if it were no big deal, then why did he lie? To say “we can’t know for sure what they meant by that” is completely disengenous. “They were very disrespectful, at least verbally, with Renate,” Sean Hagan, one of Kavanaugh’s high school classmates, told The New York Times.”
By Kavanaugh’s own admission they were trying to emulate the popular movies of the day, all of which treated women as disposable objects (e.g, Porkys, Animal House, etc.). By the account of many, many men who have gone to Georgetown Prep and other elite schools like it, they were all indoctrinated into a sense of entitlement, both around women and around the world in general. This is highly relevant to the question at hand.
But since you are asking for more concrete lies, let’s look at these: He said he had no ties to Yale and got in there solely by “busting his butt.” Meanwhile, his grandfather went to Yale as an undergraduate. He is, what is termed, a legacy.
He claimed to not be an excessive drinker and yet several men and women who knew him at Yale say otherwise.
Kavanaugh and his friends were “loud, obnoxious frat boy-like drunks,” who were the “hardest drinkers on campus,” according to Kit Winter, Kavanaugh’s other freshman-year college roommate.
“I definitely saw him on multiple occasions stumbling drunk where he could not have rational control over his actions or clear recollection of them,” said Daniel Livan, who lived in Kavanaugh’s dorm. “His depiction of himself is inaccurate.”
Then there’s the drinking age thing.
“My friends and I sometimes got together and had parties on weekends,” Kavanaugh testified. “The drinking age was 18 in Maryland for most of my time in high school, and was 18 in D.C. for all of my time in high school.”
The legal drinking age was raised to 21 in Maryland when Kavanaugh was 17 years old in 1982, which is when Blasey’s alleged assault took place.
Not only is Kavanaugh wrong about the drinking age when he was in high school; he wasn’t even 18 years old (the incorrect drinking age he claims) when he recorded his own beer drinking on his calendar at the time.
Who cares about a little underage drinking? It wouldn’t matter if this weren’t about two bigger issues: the event in question and whether Kavanaugh is credible. His dishonesty here shows he gets even the little things wrong.
And perhaps most damning, is the lie about the party.
“I never attended a gathering like the one Dr. Ford describes in her allegation,” Kavanaugh said.
But according to Kavanaugh’s calendars from the summer of 1982, which he submitted as evidence in his defense, he did.
As he said himself, “The calendars show a few weekday gatherings at friends’ houses after a workout or just to meet up and have some beers.” He says that he never attended a gathering like this, but that’s obviously false because the type of gathering he said he did attend is exactly the kind she described.
“None of those gatherings included the group of people that Dr. Ford has identified,” he also said.
On July 1, Kavanaugh wrote that he planned to go “to Timmy’s for skis w/Judge, Tom, PJ, Bernie, Squi.” “Skis” are “brewskis,” a popular slang term for canned or bottled beer in the early 1980s.
So he gathered for brewskis with two of the three people Blasey said she remembers being there. Small gathering? Beer? Judge, Brett and P.J.? Check, check and check.
So, let’s recap.
- Her demeanor is vulnerable and open, despite the fact that she is clearly scared and has already been chased from her home and had her email hacked. She gains nothing by coming forward, and in fact has a lot to lose.
- Most of the senators on the committee (including the Republicans) say that they found her testimony credible and moving.
- She testifies in a way that is consistent with the way that someone who has been traumatized would according to current neuroscience; remembering specific details with crystal clarity and not remembering others. She does not try to cover up places where her testimony needs to be clarified.
- False accusations are rare and if made by adult women, they tend to fit a certain profile. The woman in the Duke lacrosse situation was a perfect example of this. She had been in trouble with the law before and eventually went to jail for trying to kill her boyfriend. She made wild claims, like that she had been gang-raped on a bed of broken glass. Dr. Ford’s testimony was completely different from this, and entirely consistent with hundreds of thousands of other reports of date rape.
- She took and passed a polygraph test.
- She went to college in California to get as far away from him as possible and briefly considered moving to New Zealand when she thought he might become a Supreme Court Justice. Instead, she did what she thought was her civic duty, and came forward. I won’t dispute that the dems didn’t handle the allegation in the best way, but that doesn’t speak to whether it is a substantive allegation or not.
- His demeanor is that of someone who is outraged that their priviledge is being questioned. How dare this random woman from his past dare to impede what is rightfully his?! He is disrespectful, and evasive, freqently refusing to answer direct questions. He employs a fair amount of misdirection, (e.g, no-one who she said was there says that it happend). Meanwhile, that isn’t what they said at all. They said they didn’t remember it. Saying that you don’t remember something is not the same as saying that you remember that it didn’t happen. And a judge would know this because it’s a common distinction under law.
- He lies repeatedly under oath (see above).
- He went to an elite school that actually taught it’s students that they didn’t have to play by the same rules as “regular” people.
- Kavanaugh’s friend Judge wrote a book titled “Wasted: Tales of a GenX Drunk,” in which a character named Bart O’Kavanaugh (sound familiar?) vomits on someone’s car during Beach Week and passes out. Kavanaugh denied that he was the inspiration for O’Kavanaugh. “He wrote a book that is a fictionalized book,” he said in his hearing. But a note at the beginning of Judge’s book states, “This book is based on actual experiences.”
- There’s a slew of email evidence that has come to light recently that indicates that Kavanaugh has lied for his own purposes under oath many times before, including at the hearing for his appointment to the DC Circuit, wherein his own words in his own messages contradict what he said under oath. I don’t have time to go into all of that here, but it’s in the link I previously cited about 29 lies and counting.
You are going to draw whatever conclusions you want, but to me, this paints a really clear picture. My critical analysis of the available data, taking all of these things into account, is that he had enough of a stink around him that he should not be elevated to the high court. Is it enough to convict him in a court of law 36 years later? Probably not, although as I said, we routinely convict people on less circumstantial evidence than that in this country.
All indications from multiple witnesses, both male and female, are that his younger years were not at all as he characterized them under oath. He often drank to excess and to the point of blacking out. Could he have attacked Ford and not remembered it? It seems highly plausible. But more importantly, he behaved in a way that was unfitting for someone who would hold that position.
He stands in sharp contrast to someone like Sandra Day O’Connor, who graduated near the top of her class at Stanford but couldn’t get a job because law firms openly declined to even interview women at that time. None-the-less, she persisted until she was able to get the county attorney to hire her, at no pay. She had to put her desk in with the secretary. But over time, she worked hard and moved up. When President Reagan tapped her, she was unsure whether she had the right kind of legal background to do the job well, but her husband convinced her to take the job. She took interpreting the law seriously, even when it bumped up against her own political or moral beliefs. That is the kind of person who belongs on the Supreme Court -someone with integrity, humility and a dogged desire to do the best job possible. Not an entitled frat boy who is used to using his good old boy network and privilege to get ahead.