"Why Brett Kavanaugh’s Hearings Convinced Me That He’s Guilty"
Jonathan Chait
http://nymag.com/daily/intelli
Alan: Traditional Christian moral theology says it is best to decide on the side of caution, even if caution risks error.
Excerpt: Why do I believe Kavanaugh is lying? The charges are credible, and his accusers are willing to put themselves at risk, with no apparent gain to bring them to the public. Kavanaugh has said too many things that strain credulity for all them to be plausibly true. He almost certainly lied about having had access to files stolen by Senate Republicans back when he was handling judicial nominations in the Bush administration. His explanation that the “Renate Alumni” was not a sexual reference is difficult to square with a fellow Renate Alumnus’s poem ( “You need a date / and it’s getting late / so don’t hesitate / to call Renate”) portraying her as a cheap date. His insistence “boof” and “devil’s triangle” from his yearbook were references to flatulence and a drinking game drew incredulous responses from people his age who have heard these terms. His claim that the “Beach Week Ralph Club” was a reference to a weak stomach seems highly unlikely.
The accretion of curious details ultimately overwhelms the small possibility that he is a man wronged. The conviction he summoned is the righteous belief of an adult who feels he should not be denied the career reward due to him by the errors of his youth, and who decided from the outset to close the door to that period in his life. Perhaps he believes he has made amends for his cruelty. I see a liar who has the chance to prove his good faith innocence, and has conspicuously refused...
The method Republicans have used to defend Kavanaugh has consisted of suppressing most of the evidence that could be brought to bear in the hearing, and then complaining about the lack of evidence. “Unless something new comes forward, you have just an emotional accusation and an emotional denial without corroboration,” said Senator Lindsey Graham. Conservative columnist Kimberly Strassel argued, “The standard here isn’t where you ‘look’ or ‘sound’ ‘credible.’ It is whether you provide evidence.”"
The method Republicans have used to defend Kavanaugh has consisted of suppressing most of the evidence that could be brought to bear in the hearing, and then complaining about the lack of evidence. “Unless something new comes forward, you have just an emotional accusation and an emotional denial without corroboration,” said Senator Lindsey Graham. Conservative columnist Kimberly Strassel argued, “The standard here isn’t where you ‘look’ or ‘sound’ ‘credible.’ It is whether you provide evidence.”"
Alan: The Jekyll and Hyde horror embedded in Chait's presumption of Kavanaugh's guilt (a presumption I share) is that by "closing the door on his youth," Kavanaugh transforms his well-rationalized refusal to tell the truth into the frank allegation that Christine Blasey Ford is lying (or somehow "mistaken") despite her "100% certainty."
Inconveniently, relatively few Americans who watched all of Blasey Ford's testimony yesterday believed she was lying or mistaken.
Indeed, her evident honesty was of such a high order that it is exceedingly difficult to ascribe mendacity or ulterior motive.
Indeed, her evident honesty was of such a high order that it is exceedingly difficult to ascribe mendacity or ulterior motive.
My Reply To A Woman Who Posted In Kavanaugh's Defense On Fred Owen's Facebook Page
http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2018/10/my-reply-to-woman-who-posted-in.html
Despite ongoing efforts from Republicans to trash Blasey Ford's credibility, it is Brett Kavanaugh who, in a shameless display of incredibility, exhibited the skills of a master contortionist in his refusal (nine times!) to answer this straightforward question: "Would you personally call upon the FBI to conduct an investigation?"
Such an investigation is verboten (at least until the Democrats retake the Senate) because the ensuing interview with Kavanaugh sidekick Mark Judge would reveal information that "ups the ante" beyond Kavanaugh's Supreme Court confirmation, revealing him as a liar on a number of fronts, many relating to Brett's minimization (and denials) of his "boys will be boys" teenage "boisterousness."
Once revealed as a felonious liar, Kavanaugh would lose his current judgeship, quite likely his marriage, and would probably be disbarred.
Whatever one ultimately believes about Kavanaugh's guilt or innocence, Blasey Ford's testimony was credible beyond reasonable doubt.
Given the length of Trump's list of prevetted potential Supreme Court nominees, even a rudimentary sense of fairness would nix Kavanaugh's nomination, defaulting to a new nominee from the already approved list.
Kavanaugh Has No Frame Of Reference To Understand Dr. Christine Ford's Meticulous Honesty
Kavanaugh Loves Beer And Was Often Pukingly Drunk. How Would He Remember Black Outs?
Kavanaugh Confesses To Alcohol Induced Bewilderment
Dr. Christine Blasey Ford's Opening Statement In Full
"Brett Kavanaugh And The Cruelty Of Male Bonding: When Being One Of The Guys..."
(WARNING: This post contains a photograph of a penis.)
Brett Kavanaugh, Alcohol And Sexual Assault
NPR: Kavanaugh's Disqualifying Partisanship; Attacks On The Clintons And Outside Money
48% Of White Evangelicals Want Kavanaugh's Confirmation Even If He's Guilty
Who Is Mark Judge? And Why Didn't He Give Testimony To The Senate Judiciary Committee?
"A List of Everyone the FBI Could Interview About Brett Kavanaugh if They Really Want The Truth"
"Devil's Triangle," And "Boof" Are Not What Kavanaugh Said They Were Under Oath
Kavanaugh's Judicial Temperament
Kavanaugh And Friends Boasted About Their Alleged Conquests In Georgetown Prep Yearbook
"Should Kavanaugh Be Confirmed If We Don't Know Who Is Telling The Truth?"
http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2018/09/should-kavanaugh-be-confirmed-if-we.htmlAlan: Traditional Christian moral theology says it is best to decide on the side of caution, even if caution risks error.
No comments:
Post a Comment