A few days ago, I took Brett Kavanaugh's denial that he was even at the party as evidence that he, indeed, was at the party. If you are going to deny that you were at a specific party, you have to know the party was held.
And, if you didn't even go to that party, how do you remember it?
It would be more likely to say, "What party is she even talking about?" and to scramble to remember the party. That would make sense. But, to basically say, "Oh, I remember that party . . . but I never attended it"?
Well, someone suggested to me that Kavanaugh learned enough about the party to know he wasn't there. Now, that makes sense. He could have learned it was at a certain place, and he knew he never attended at party at that location.
Still, there is reason to suspect Kavanaugh. Among the factors suggesting Christine Blasey Ford is telling the truth:
(1) If you are just making a story up, why would you place Mark Judge in it? He is Kavanaugh's friend, not yours. Isn't he going to be inclined to stand with his friend? If you are just making a story up, don't create witnesses that are going to witness against you. Only a fool would make up a story like that.
(2) Mark Judge says he doesn't want to testify to the committee. "I have no information to offer the Committee and I do not wish to speak publicly regarding the incidents described in Dr. Ford's letter," Judge said in an email to the senate committee's chair. If the incident never occurred, and if all you have to do it tell the committee it didn't, of course you testify. You are outraged at such a lie, and you are willing to help the committee arrive at the truth. You are willing and anxious to help a friend. How suspicious is it that Judge has asked that he not be called on to testify?
(3) Blasey Ford is calling for the FBI to investigate. If you are telling a lie, do you call on the FBI to investigate your lie? Yet, she has not only called on the FBI to investigate, she has pleaded, even threatening not to show up for a hearing until the FBI investigates.
Kavanaugh's saying he was not at the party expands what there is to investigate. Without the denial, if you are wanting direct testimony, you have but the witnesses of Blasey Ford, and Kavanaugh, and Judge. If you get lucky, you find something in the intervening 36 years that they have written in a letter to someone. That would be first-hand information. Whether Kavanaugh was at the party is not as critical. If he was there, it doesn't prove a thing. You can go to a party without committing a sex offense.
But, with Kavanaugh denying he was even at the party, all changes. If he is lying, his credibility is in question. If he is lying about being there, is he also lying about whether he sexually attacked her? So, who are you going to believe, Blasey Ford or Kavanaugh? Which one has greater credibility?
Now, whether Kavanaugh was at the party becomes more relevant. If he is saying he wasn't there, and it ends up he was, you have something. It is pertinent. And, it widens the list of first-hand witnesses. If you are investigating whether he was even at the party, everyone who remembers seeing him there becomes a first-hand witness to that.
If Kavanaugh was there, and yet is saying he wasn't, that becomes a concern, in and of itself. The matter is no longer just about what might have happened 36 years ago. Now you are considering Kavanaugh on the basis of an action that just occurred. Do you select someone for your highest court who would knowingly lie in order to get that appointment? Now, when he gives testimony Monday, or whenever, he will probably be placed under an oath to tell the truth. Lying under oath isn't taken lightly in America. Placing someone on your highest court who lies under oath -- do we really want to do that?
(Blog edited and partially rewritten the morning of 9-22-18)
No comments:
Post a Comment