bubbadog said:

---

And on top of that, his hysterical rant was a huge red flag. His defenders dismiss that as righteous anger. I get that. I'd be angry, too, were I falsely accused. I also expect someone being considered for his position to be able to control his anger enough to navigate a hearing without flying off into wild furies about the revenge of the Clintons and demanding to know from senators whether they'd been blind drunk. You're not going to convince the undecided that you're not a mean, drunken bully by acting like a mean, drunken bully on national TV.

Is that a DQ? I don't know. It's not the term I'd use, necessarily. What I'd say, as the job interviewer, is, "Thank you very much for your time, Mr. Kavanaugh. We believe we have some candidates who are even better qualified than you."

I don't see how anyone, Republican, Democrat or Independent, could believe this guy will as a Supreme Court justice anything other than what he showed on TV the other day. The difference is that the partisans who support him don't care if he takes partisanship to a new and bitter level on that Court.

---

His defense of himself doesn't bother me. It looks like a convenient dodge for 'Never Kavanaughers". As the allegations of sexual assault fell apart the 'NKers' retreat to judicial temperament. If he had given a dispassionate defense with little or no emotion, you'd be saying he must be guilty because how could he not show emotion when accused of being a drunk, serial rapist.

The hearing morphed from a job interview to a character smear of nuclear dimensions.

I have been silent for a few days waiting on the FBI investigation. This from NYTimes this morning: an official briefed on the F.B.I. review said the bureau contacted 10 people and interviewed nine of them. It was not clear why the 10th person was not interviewed. The White House concluded that the interviews did not corroborate sexual misconduct accusations against Judge Kavanaugh, and could help his case, said the person briefed on the findings, who requested anonymity to discuss them.

The Senate will advise and hopefully consent soon. If K is rejected I'll be disappointed for the country. I believe K will as a good Supreme Court justice, maybe great

From WSJ

Brett Kavanaugh isn't part of Mr. Trump's New York menagerie, or some Steve Bannon insurgent. The judge is the epitome of the GOP legal establishment, a Supreme Court nominee from central casting. He went to the best schools and served his apprenticeship among legal elites including a clerkship with former Justice Anthony Kennedy.

He has spent 26 years in public service instead of cashing in as a Beltway lawyer. He served at the highest levels of George W. Bush's White House staff in positions of great trust. On the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals for 12 years, he has written more than 300 opinions and had at least 10 adopted by the Supreme Court. He has taught at Harvard Law School at the invitation of then dean, and now Justice, Elena Kagan.
With these credentials Judge Kavanaugh would have been on any Republican's short list for the Supreme Court. He could have been Jeb Bush's nominee, or John Kasich's, though Mr. Kasich in the ambitious ebb of his career now tilts with the anti-conservative left against Mr. Kavanaugh. In 2012 the New Yorker's Jeffrey Toobin wrote that Mr. Kavanaugh would have been Mitt Romney's "most likely first nominee" for the High Court. Mr. Toobin, who loathes conservatives, meant it as a warning.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-never-conservatives-1538608630?cx_testId=0&cx_testVariant=cx_1&cx_artPos=0#cxrecs_s

Oso,

Sort of an old news post. No one I know questions his credentials.

Those who would vote against him on idealogical grounds would agree that he is not as far right as others.

Did he sexually assault someone? Not enough evidence to say yes; I don't think that is a close call.

Did he lie about sexual assault? Logically, has to be the same answer, but I would go further and say that even if there was some sort of incident, he doesn't remember it so he can't lie about it.

Did he lie about collateral matters? Lie is a strong word. He certainly did not tell the whole truth.

Booray said:

---

Oso,

Sort of an old news post. No one I know questions his credentials.

Those who would vote against him on idealogical grounds would agree that he is not as far right as others.

Did he sexually assault someone? Not enough evidence to say yes; I don't think that is a close call.

Did he lie about sexual assault? Logically, has to be the same answer, but I would go further and say that even if there was some sort of incident, he doesn't remember it so he can't lie about it.

Did he lie about collateral matters? Lie is a strong word. He certainly did not tell the whole truth.

---

You might as well install AI computer software to make SCOTUS decision with your standards lol

Do you ever find yourself questioning why you're super critical of a guy that is pretty damn centered and not extremely conservative?

I know you're very left leaning, but you lost an election...this is good as you're going to get. I suggest you focus on why your Democrats can't seem to resonate with voters anymore.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oso,

Sort of an old news post. No one I know questions his credentials.

Those who would vote against him on idealogical grounds would agree that he is not as far right as others.

Did he sexually assault someone? Not enough evidence to say yes; I don't think that is a close call.

Did he lie about sexual assault? Logically, has to be the same answer, but I would go further and say that even if there was some sort of incident, he doesn't remember it so he can't lie about it.

Did he lie about collateral matters? Lie is a strong word. He certainly did not tell the whole truth.

---

You might as well install AI computer software to make SCOTUS decision with your standards lol

Do you ever find yourself questioning why you're super critical of a guy that is pretty damn centered and not extremely conservative?

I know you're very left leaning, but you lost an election...this is good as you're going to get. I suggest you focus on why your Democrats can't seem to resonate with voters anymore.

---

1) I have never said he shouldn't be confirmed. I said his honesty issue is troubling.

2) Do you ever ask yourself why any criticism of any right-wing position or politician is automatically incorrect?

3) Specifically in this instance, does Judge Kavanaugh's obvious minimizing of his drinking habits and distorted remembrance of some of the collateral matters from his yearbook bother you in the least? Or do you fall in the camp of "lying is ok if he was unfairly attacked?"

4) More people vote for Democrats than for Republicans. Print your post and 20 years from now tell me how much the current GOP continued to "resonate."

Booray said:

---

Oso,

Sort of an old news post. No one I know questions his credentials.

Those who would vote against him on idealogical grounds would agree that he is not as far right as others.

Did he sexually assault someone? Not enough evidence to say yes; I don't think that is a close call.

Did he lie about sexual assault? Logically, has to be the same answer, but I would go further and say that even if there was some sort of incident, he doesn't remember it so he can't lie about it.

Did he lie about collateral matters? Lie is a strong word. He certainly did not tell the whole truth.

---

Boo
In an exchange last night I quoted your post to make sure I addressed your question.

About what did he not tell whole truth?

Quote:

---

1) I have never said he shouldn't be confirmed. I said his honesty issue is troubling.

---

Get over it then.

Quote:

---

2) Do you ever ask yourself why any criticism of any right-wing position or politician is automatically incorrect?

---

I criticize right wing positions and politicians all the time.

Quote:

---

3) Specifically in this instance, does Judge Kavanaugh's obvious minimizing of his drinking habits and distorted remembrance of some of the collateral matters from his yearbook bother you in the least? Or do you fall in the camp of "lying is ok if he was unfairly attacked?"

---

Here you go again accepting a false assumption. You have ZERO evidence that he's minimizing his drinking habits. Who told you this? What evidence do you have to prove this is the case?

Quote:

---

4) More people vote for Democrats than for Republicans. Print your post and 20 years from now tell me how much the current GOP continued to "resonate."

---

Do you realize that we don't live in a democracy? We live in a Representative Republic where groupthink and majority rule will get this country killed.

The DNC is losing, Democrats are polling badly and leftists are getting exposed every single day.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oso,

Sort of an old news post. No one I know questions his credentials.

Those who would vote against him on idealogical grounds would agree that he is not as far right as others.

Did he sexually assault someone? Not enough evidence to say yes; I don't think that is a close call.

Did he lie about sexual assault? Logically, has to be the same answer, but I would go further and say that even if there was some sort of incident, he doesn't remember it so he can't lie about it.

Did he lie about collateral matters? Lie is a strong word. He certainly did not tell the whole truth.

---

You might as well install AI computer software to make SCOTUS decision with your standards lol

Do you ever find yourself questioning why you're super critical of a guy that is pretty damn centered and not extremely conservative?

I know you're very left leaning, but you lost an election...this is good as you're going to get. I suggest you focus on why your Democrats can't seem to resonate with voters anymore.

---

You can't tell nuanced from "super critical". Explains a lot.

Also doesn't understand that a representative republic is a type of democracy.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oso,

Sort of an old news post. No one I know questions his credentials.

Those who would vote against him on idealogical grounds would agree that he is not as far right as others.

Did he sexually assault someone? Not enough evidence to say yes; I don't think that is a close call.

Did he lie about sexual assault? Logically, has to be the same answer, but I would go further and say that even if there was some sort of incident, he doesn't remember it so he can't lie about it.

Did he lie about collateral matters? Lie is a strong word. He certainly did not tell the whole truth.

---

You might as well install AI computer software to make SCOTUS decision with your standards lol

Do you ever find yourself questioning why you're super critical of a guy that is pretty damn centered and not extremely conservative?

I know you're very left leaning, but you lost an election...this is good as you're going to get. I suggest you focus on why your Democrats can't seem to resonate with voters anymore.

---

1) I have never said he shouldn't be confirmed. I said his honesty issue is troubling.

2) Do you ever ask yourself why any criticism of any right-wing position or politician is automatically incorrect?

3) Specifically in this instance, does Judge Kavanaugh's obvious minimizing of his drinking habits and distorted remembrance of some of the collateral matters from his yearbook bother you in the least? Or do you fall in the camp of "lying is ok if he was unfairly attacked?"

4) More people vote for Democrats than for Republicans. Print your post and 20 years from now tell me how much the current GOP continued to "resonate."

---

Yep. High School and College drinking and what we wrote in our high school yearbooks should be the litmus test for all of us regarding our employment.

---

Said no one.

Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oso,

Sort of an old news post. No one I know questions his credentials.

Those who would vote against him on idealogical grounds would agree that he is not as far right as others.

Did he sexually assault someone? Not enough evidence to say yes; I don't think that is a close call.

Did he lie about sexual assault? Logically, has to be the same answer, but I would go further and say that even if there was some sort of incident, he doesn't remember it so he can't lie about it.

Did he lie about collateral matters? Lie is a strong word. He certainly did not tell the whole truth.

---

You might as well install AI computer software to make SCOTUS decision with your standards lol

Do you ever find yourself questioning why you're super critical of a guy that is pretty damn centered and not extremely conservative?

I know you're very left leaning, but you lost an election...this is good as you're going to get. I suggest you focus on why your Democrats can't seem to resonate with voters anymore.

---

1) I have never said he shouldn't be confirmed. I said his honesty issue is troubling.

2) Do you ever ask yourself why any criticism of any right-wing position or politician is automatically incorrect?

3) Specifically in this instance, does Judge Kavanaugh's obvious minimizing of his drinking habits and distorted remembrance of some of the collateral matters from his yearbook bother you in the least? Or do you fall in the camp of "lying is ok if he was unfairly attacked?"

4) More people vote for Democrats than for Republicans. Print your post and 20 years from now tell me how much the current GOP continued to "resonate."

---

Yep. High School and College drinking and what we wrote in our high school yearbooks should be the litmus test for all of us regarding our employment.

---

Said no one.

---

See your bullet point #3 above. Not sure why you feel the need to dance around your reason you don't think Kavanaugh should be on the Supreme Court. You think he should not because you think he lied about his degree of drinking in college or what he wrote in high school yearbooks. Is that not correct?

And for the record, there is nothing wrong with that if your answer is YES. People just have different opinions about what is and is not important.

Booray said:

---

Also doesn't understand that a representative republic is a type of democracy.

---

...therefore not a pure democracy.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Also doesn't understand that a representative republic is a type of democracy.

---

...therefore not a pure democracy.

---

I think the term you are looking for is "direct democracy." If you had used the right term, I would not have made the comment. Words have meaning.

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Also doesn't understand that a representative republic is a type of democracy.

---

...therefore not a pure democracy.

---

I think the term you are looking for is "direct democracy." If you had used the right term, I would not have made the comment. Words have meaning.

---

Synonyms buddy, synonyms.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oso,

Sort of an old news post. No one I know questions his credentials.

Those who would vote against him on idealogical grounds would agree that he is not as far right as others.

Did he sexually assault someone? Not enough evidence to say yes; I don't think that is a close call.

Did he lie about sexual assault? Logically, has to be the same answer, but I would go further and say that even if there was some sort of incident, he doesn't remember it so he can't lie about it.

Did he lie about collateral matters? Lie is a strong word. He certainly did not tell the whole truth.

---

You might as well install AI computer software to make SCOTUS decision with your standards lol

Do you ever find yourself questioning why you're super critical of a guy that is pretty damn centered and not extremely conservative?

I know you're very left leaning, but you lost an election...this is good as you're going to get. I suggest you focus on why your Democrats can't seem to resonate with voters anymore.

---

1) I have never said he shouldn't be confirmed. I said his honesty issue is troubling.

2) Do you ever ask yourself why any criticism of any right-wing position or politician is automatically incorrect?

3) Specifically in this instance, does Judge Kavanaugh's obvious minimizing of his drinking habits and distorted remembrance of some of the collateral matters from his yearbook bother you in the least? Or do you fall in the camp of "lying is ok if he was unfairly attacked?"

4) More people vote for Democrats than for Republicans. Print your post and 20 years from now tell me how much the current GOP continued to "resonate."

---

Yep. High School and College drinking and what we wrote in our high school yearbooks should be the litmus test for all of us regarding our employment.

---

Said no one.

---

See your bullet point #3 above. Not sure why you feel the need to dance around your reason you don't think Kavanaugh should be on the Supreme Court. You think he should not because you think he lied about his degree of drinking in college or what he wrote in high school yearbooks. Is that not correct?

And for the record, there is nothing wrong with that if your answer is YES. People just have different opinions about what is and is not important.

---

Because I think it is a really hard decision. As I have pointed out several times, we don't have the whole record. He very well could have been more forthcoming abut his drinking habits in closed door communications with the committee; being a sloppy, belligerent drunk is not the same as being a blackout drunk but they are in the same universe and it was decades ago. I assume that if he still drank like that, we would know about it.

All of which is why you could never prove a perjury case. But he did present as someone whose drinking was usually within reasonable limits and there is plenty of evidence that it went beyond that.

On the yearbook side I had never heard the terms "boofing" or "devil's triangle" before his testimony. The explained urban slang is apparently sexual; he said they refer to farting and drinking. Would like to know what Mark Judge, P.J. and Squi had to say about that. Is it possible they used the terms differently-sure. Unlikely, but possible.

My guess is that if I had the full record my vote would be no based on less than complete candor. But I really don't know for sure. BTW, I think the Dems-in a rush to solidify the women's vote--did an awful job of focusing on this point. There was no way we were ever going to know if there had been a sexual assault, yet that became the sole focus. The GOP was happy to let that happen-because there was no way we were ever going to know if there was sexual assault.

Oldbear83 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

I don't see how anyone, Republican, Democrat or Independent, could believe this guy will as a Supreme Court justice anything other than what he showed on TV the other day. The difference is that the partisans who support him don't care if he takes partisanship to a new and bitter level on that Court.

---

Ah. So if someone falsely accuses you on national television of a crime you did not commit, then the media and a major political party smear you just because they are afraid of your skill as a judge, you would respond with no emotion at all.

This ain't Vulcan, Spock.

---

Not with no emotion at all. As I said above. But not with an out-of-control yodeling rant either. Which is what Kavanaugh did.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Also doesn't understand that a representative republic is a type of democracy.

---

...therefore not a pure democracy.

---

I think the term you are looking for is "direct democracy." If you had used the right term, I would not have made the comment. Words have meaning.

---

Synonyms buddy, synonyms.

---

Yeah. You should have used one or the other the first time. Condescending people suck. Dumb condescending people suck more.

Osodecentx said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oso,

Sort of an old news post. No one I know questions his credentials.

Those who would vote against him on idealogical grounds would agree that he is not as far right as others.

Did he sexually assault someone? Not enough evidence to say yes; I don't think that is a close call.

Did he lie about sexual assault? Logically, has to be the same answer, but I would go further and say that even if there was some sort of incident, he doesn't remember it so he can't lie about it.

Did he lie about collateral matters? Lie is a strong word. He certainly did not tell the whole truth.

---

Boo
In an exchange last night I quoted your post to make sure I addressed your question.

About what did he not tell whole truth?

---

At least the extent of his drinking (to be fair, better questioning could have forced more precise answers) and the yearbook references. See another of my posts on the drinking games/sexual references. The "Renate alumni club" was straight up-I slept with her boast. His explanation for it was lame.

Osodecentx said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

And on top of that, his hysterical rant was a huge red flag. His defenders dismiss that as righteous anger. I get that. I'd be angry, too, were I falsely accused. I also expect someone being considered for his position to be able to control his anger enough to navigate a hearing without flying off into wild furies about the revenge of the Clintons and demanding to know from senators whether they'd been blind drunk. You're not going to convince the undecided that you're not a mean, drunken bully by acting like a mean, drunken bully on national TV.

Is that a DQ? I don't know. It's not the term I'd use, necessarily. What I'd say, as the job interviewer, is, "Thank you very much for your time, Mr. Kavanaugh. We believe we have some candidates who are even better qualified than you."

I don't see how anyone, Republican, Democrat or Independent, could believe this guy will as a Supreme Court justice anything other than what he showed on TV the other day. The difference is that the partisans who support him don't care if he takes partisanship to a new and bitter level on that Court.

---

His defense of himself doesn't bother me. It looks like a convenient dodge for 'Never Kavanaughers".

---

Again, you're seeing it through the tribal lens. Because the legitimate concerns about Kavanaugh also happen to be a convenient opportunity for those who were never going to vote for Kavanaugh anyway (which is most of the Senate Democrats), then suddenly the concerns have no legitimacy.Take off the tribal glasses, and it looks different. In the end, the tribal aspect may be all that matters, as it will be the highly tribal Senate that decides whether Kavanaugh gets on the Court or not. But I can at least recognize tribalism for what it is.

GolemIII said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

You tribalism is showing. Again.

I've consistently said that I originally thought Kavanaugh should be confirmed because he was qualified by intellect and experience and there seemed to be nothing we knew of to disqualify him.

The hard drinking is NOT a disqualifier. Given his years on the bench, no one would even be looking at his HS and college and law school drinking... EXCEPT that he has been accused of sexual assault, and he was allegedly very drunk when the alleged assaults took place.

Even then, he could have been honest about what many of his friends already knew and what everyone else was about to find out. But he wasn't -- perhaps because he believed (or was coached) that any admission that he was regularly "drunk and obnoxious" (his phrase) might be construed as a tacit admission that the allegations were true and he had been too drunk to remember. He flat-out lied to the Senate and misrepresented the truth in other areas. That undercut his credibility about everything else. If he lied about that stuff, what else did he lie about?

And on top of that, his hysterical rant was a huge red flag. His defenders dismiss that as righteous anger. I get that. I'd be angry, too, were I falsely accused. I also expect someone being considered for his position to be able to control his anger enough to navigate a hearing without flying off into wild furies about the revenge of the Clintons and demanding to know from senators whether they'd been blind drunk. You're not going to convince the undecided that you're not a mean, drunken bully by acting like a mean, drunken bully on national TV.

Is that a DQ? I don't know. It's not the term I'd use, necessarily. What I'd say, as the job interviewer, is, "Thank you very much for your time, Mr. Kavanaugh. We believe we have some candidates who are even better qualified than you."

This guy could have displayed anger and frustration and yet still conveyed to people that he could be an honest caller of balls and strikes. He didn't even try on that latter part. Didn't bother and didn't care.

I don't see how anyone, Republican, Democrat or Independent, could believe this guy will as a Supreme Court justice anything other than what he showed on TV the other day. The difference is that the partisans who support him don't care if he takes partisanship to a new and bitter level on that Court.

---

You people are dishonest and despicable. Nothing about Kavanaugh was "hysterical". He was entirely rational and justifiably angry at the individuals who so blatantly set out to destroy his life, his career and his family for their own leftist political gain and did so along stark (and stark raving) political party lines.

It's utterly moronic to suggest any man would or should react coolly to this type of leftist evil.

---

I take it you decided unilaterally to end our agreement of mutual civility.

bubbadog said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

And on top of that, his hysterical rant was a huge red flag. His defenders dismiss that as righteous anger. I get that. I'd be angry, too, were I falsely accused. I also expect someone being considered for his position to be able to control his anger enough to navigate a hearing without flying off into wild furies about the revenge of the Clintons and demanding to know from senators whether they'd been blind drunk. You're not going to convince the undecided that you're not a mean, drunken bully by acting like a mean, drunken bully on national TV.

Is that a DQ? I don't know. It's not the term I'd use, necessarily. What I'd say, as the job interviewer, is, "Thank you very much for your time, Mr. Kavanaugh. We believe we have some candidates who are even better qualified than you."

I don't see how anyone, Republican, Democrat or Independent, could believe this guy will as a Supreme Court justice anything other than what he showed on TV the other day. The difference is that the partisans who support him don't care if he takes partisanship to a new and bitter level on that Court.

---

His defense of himself doesn't bother me. It looks like a convenient dodge for 'Never Kavanaughers".

---

Again, you're seeing it through the tribal lens. Because the legitimate concerns about Kavanaugh also happen to be a convenient opportunity for those who were never going to vote for Kavanaugh anyway (which is most of the Senate Democrats), then suddenly the concerns have no legitimacy.Take off the tribal glasses, and it looks different. In the end, the tribal aspect may be all that matters, as it will be the highly tribal Senate that decides whether Kavanaugh gets on the Court or not. But I can at least recognize tribalism for what it is.

---

Your concerns are NOT legitimate. They're childish. His career proves his time in college doesn't mean jack **** about his character today.

Are you such a child that you actually believe he would state in front of the senate that he liked to get drunk a lot and smash beers all day long while college? Are you 5 years old?.

GET REAL.

Your concerns are so unbelievably fake. Proves your arrogance is off the charts.

The left is the king of tribalism. Identity politics, postmodernism and all. In the back of your head you know this.

You think very highly of yourself. Might want to get that arrogance and narcissism checked out.

Golem is right, you're dishonest and despicable.

Oldbear83 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

I don't see how anyone, Republican, Democrat or Independent, could believe this guy will as a Supreme Court justice anything other than what he showed on TV the other day. The difference is that the partisans who support him don't care if he takes partisanship to a new and bitter level on that Court.

---

Ah. So if someone falsely accuses you on national television of a crime you did not commit, then the media and a major political party smear you just because they are afraid of your skill as a judge, you would respond with no emotion at all.

This ain't Vulcan, Spock.

---

Not with no emotion at all. As I said above. But not with an out-of-control yodeling rant either. Which is what Kavanaugh did.

---

That's just a bald-faced lie. I saw Kavanaugh's testimony, and 'out-of-control' is blatantly false. Kavanaugh's emotion was exactly what I would expect from a wrongfully-accused man who has seen 30 years of service smeared by lies and smear attacks.

---

He's a lying jackass.

He won't even cite or offer up proof to back up his claims as we have asked over and over again.

Although you and I don't agree on the issue, this was a pretty darned good post. Thank you.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Although you and I don't agree on the issue, this was a pretty darned good post. Thank you.

---

Thanks. The best thing we could all do is turn the heat down to a slow boil.

At the end of the day-regardless of the vote on Kavanaugh- there is going to be a conservative majority on the Court for a long time to come absent something happening to those in the majority. And if he is appointed, all of this won't impact Kavanaugh's job performance. So none of this is going materially change the decisions the Supreme Court will issue. What is taking a hit is the public perception of our institutions.

And we all blame the politicians, mostly the politicians leading the other side. But we keep buying what they are selling.

Osodecentx said:

---

About what did he not tell whole truth?

---

Here's a partial list:

1. He said that girls from Ford's school weren't part of the social circle for boys in his school. That was flat-out untrue, and many alumni from both schools rushed to point that out.

2. He flat-out lied to the Senate when he said the others at the party where the assault allegedly took place say it didn't happen. Only Kavanaugh says that. The others said they don't recall. Big difference. The girl who was there with Ford says she doesn't recall but that she believes Ford. Remember that what got Bill Clinton impeached was lying under oath. And what does it say about a candidate for the highest court that he misrepresented facts in a case?

3. He misrepresented (to give the most charitable interpretation) what he did during HS and college. He said that in HS he focused on studying, church, service projects, sports and lifting weights, implying that he didn't have time for other stuff. It's clear from his own writings and remarks and what his friends say that, in addition to those other things, he was partying hard, was a "loud, obnoxious drunk," and was on a quest to have his group consume 100 kegs in their senior year. He implied that, at Yale, he didn't have time for the party culture because every night he was in the library AND practicing basketball. That might actually be true, but if so it leaves out all the heavy drinking he also did. (Again, the problem isn't that Kavanaugh drank and partied in college. It's that he chose for some reason to misrepresent all that, which calls his credibility into question.)

4. He strains credulity so much on what he said about his yearbook entries that no one can believe him who didn't just fall off the turnip truck. Renate Alumnus doesn't imply she was a girl that all these boys shared? Poor Renate sure didn't take it that way when she recently found out about it. Boofing means flatulence? Right. The Devil's Triangle was a drinking game? That's believable only if Brett's group decided to adopt their own definitions for practices that everyone else understood to mean something else. Beach Week Ralph Club referred to his weak stomach? That kind of dissembling could only be called Clintonesque.

You know, I get it that he's embarrassed that this stuff he wrote is now coming to light. You bring your parents and wife to a Senate hearing, and you have to admit that you bragged about tag-teaming a girl in a 3-way? Or that you were blowing beets every other night and sometimes skipped school on Mondays because you and your friends were too hungover from a Sunday night kegger? Yeah, I get that. But you know what? He wrote that **** in his yearbook. Did it ever occur to him, as a guy with a big intellect and bigger ambitions, that his daughters might read that yearbook someday and ask him what the Devil's Triangle meant or why he wrote 100 kegs or bust. Or that his girls might see through his lie to them that being a Renate Alumnus was simply an expression of friendship?

5. This is just for starters. And then there are other questions where he didn't technically lie but obviously didn't tell the truth. Like the one about whether he was Bart O'Kavanaugh. When asked about that, he said, "You'll have to ask him (Mark Judge)." So he didn't actually lie by denying it. But he obviously was Bart. He even signed his letter to his guys about Beach Week as "Bart." He didn't lie to Amy Klobuchar by saying he had never been blackout drunk. Instead, he tried to turn the question back on her and deflect attention.

Booray said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oso,

Sort of an old news post. No one I know questions his credentials.

Those who would vote against him on idealogical grounds would agree that he is not as far right as others.

Did he sexually assault someone? Not enough evidence to say yes; I don't think that is a close call.

Did he lie about sexual assault? Logically, has to be the same answer, but I would go further and say that even if there was some sort of incident, he doesn't remember it so he can't lie about it.

Did he lie about collateral matters? Lie is a strong word. He certainly did not tell the whole truth.

---

Boo
In an exchange last night I quoted your post to make sure I addressed your question.

About what did he not tell whole truth?

---

At least the extent of his drinking (to be fair, better questioning could have forced more precise answers) and the yearbook references. See another of my posts on the drinking games/sexual references. The "Renate alumni club" was straight up-I slept with her boast. His explanation for it was lame.

---

okay

To all those convinced he was lying about slang yearbook phrases from the 80s:

jklburns said:

---

To all those convinced he was lying about slang yearbook phrases from the 80s:

---

Thanks for posting

The twitter responses on that tweet are just a whole big bag of sh*t house crazy.