Nancy Pelosi makes a decent Dragon-Lady, right?
Erm . . .
The Omnivore finds the whole thing painful and demeaning--but finally has something to say about it--so here it is: He should not be confirmed on the basis of his conduct under questioning about his behavior.
What the heck?
This is how it breaks down:
- Former classmates are now coming forward saying that he totally misrepresented himself about his behavior during high school and college. He was, reports say, super-drunk and often belligerent.
- He totally misrepresented himself about his behavior towards women and sex/drugs. The Omnivore's mother googled "Devil's Triangle" and concluded, right there, he was lying. He was. We all knew it. We knew why he did it. The Omnivore was, knowing why he did it, ready to give him a pass on all that crap (the nasty year-book stuff, etc.).
- He claims he has never been black-out drunk. Would he know? We can't be sure. Is he telling the truth? We can't be sure.
BUT--in light of #1 and #2, his absolute denial of #3 should be taken as a misleading, spin-laden exaggeration at best. A lie at worst.
This brings us to the testimony:
- We must be skeptical of Ford: her allegations are serious. They imply some corroboration that did not come through (Judge as the witness). They are decades old--and human memory is fallible. And yet--we all saw her and we all believed her.
- We should give Kavanaugh the benefit of the doubt (to a degree). He is a target of the Democrats. The only means he has to defend himself against these allegations is his good word. There is not a strong pattern of repeating behavior (yes, there are other stories out there--no, we do not know how valid they are as yet). We watched him and found him forceful and righteous sounding.
So what are we to make of this: If we believe them both--to a moderate degree--then the most likely case is that Kavanaugh moved on her while he was super drunk and either does not remember it (blacked out) or thought it was no big deal and has legitimately forgotten. That makes them "both right."
But, in this case, we have a problem: Kavanaugh has squandered his 'good word' on Devil's Triangle and 'boofing' nonsense which creates an issue: What standard are we going to hold a Supreme Court Justice to when confronted with competing allegations where we can be pretty sure one of them is lying about relevant details--even if he is not lying about having been black-out drunk?
The only reasonable conclusion is that if Kavanaugh would lie about his drinking habits and drinking games and yearbook in order to make himself sound like more of a boy scout what reason is there to conclude he would not lie about ever having been black-out drunk?
The (unnecessary) lies about what Devil's Triangle is seem to be solely in the service of protecting his reputation from minor damage--so clearly he would also lie about drinking to excess and (perhaps) sometimes not remembering everything that happened.
Given this, the path of least resistance is that:
- He drank way too much in high school and college and was kind of a jerk to women.
- He lied about his behavior to burnish his image.
- He claims he was never black-out drunk--BUT: this falls into the kind-of-thing that #2 covers.
- He seems believable (?) when he says he doesn't ever remember doing what Ford said he did.
- THEREFORE: if we accept 1-4 on the face of it and find Ford believable THEN the conclusion is that he got black-out drunk and assaulted her and doesn't remember it.
As this is the case and the standards for a SCOTUS justice should make #2 very iffy, there's only one reasonable conclusion--don't confirm him.