Kavanaugh’s defense attempt is Bill Clinton’s infidelity denial all over again.
Mindboggling how, after all those years, he could basically use the same text that Clinton tried – in vain – to deny admission by pretending that sex can only be intercourse. Is he trying to hide the truth in plain sight?
Let me go over this 20-minute FOX interview, phrase by phrase.
His wife opens with a shockingly naive statement. She never believed the allegations because they are “not consistent” with who Brett is. But isn’t that the definition of acting out of character?
In the new FOX interview, Judge Kavanaugh says that he wants to defend his integrity. Is this a slip of the tongue, Freudian, revealing something? He obviously should clear his name, not his integrity. Is his goal now to show that his denial is not a lie, rather than that he’s never been an abuser? If so, why? Why insist on being truthful rather than not being a(n attempted) rapist? He is smart enough to know that honest people lie when the truth is too costly for them.
But then, in the next sentence, surprisingly, he uses the word integrity in the second meaning of wholeness. He wants to defend the integrity of himself and his family. Well, that’s so obvious that one wonders why it needs stating.
And throughout the interview, he keeps repeating this, only using the word integrity is its meaning of intactness. Does he have trouble stating that he has integrity and does he so try to get a suggestion of credibility? Why not lie about being honest if one is dishonest? I don’t get it.
He denies his former roommate’s allegations that assaults on women somehow fit him by referring to women who vouch for him being OK. That is no defense at all against accusations of having acted atypically.
Then he goes on and says literally: “I’ve never sexually assaulted anyone. I did not have sexual intercourse, or anything close to sexual intercourse, in high school or for many years thereafter.” What the f*** (pun intended) does sex have to do with sexual assault? Sexual violence is a form of violence, not of sexuality. He’s a prominent judge and he doesn’t know that? Shocking.
So far in the interview, he does more damage than good to his case.
He keeps defending himself against allegations of being a serial rapist while he’s actually accused of sexual assault. These are two different things altogether, as I mentioned prominently in my previous blog post.
He even goes so far as to deny knowledge of student parties where boys and girls seclude themselves to have sex. He had many male and female friends and these friendships were all platonic. I would say that such a denial of sexuality is exactly what contributes to the sex abuse in the Catholic Church. Denial of any loose sexual activity of any students around him sounds fake and unbelievable. This is such a contrast with written records of that time. And when the two conflict, why believe him with his flat baseless denial of anything human? His lawyer should tell him not to testify at all since he comes across as a fake, sanctimonious.
It’s cringe-worthy how he answers almost any question. If there is nothing to hide, should not the FBI investigate? Great question! What better way to clear his name?! He sidesteps the question and says that he is eager swiftly to testify under oath. He’s a judge. He knows that an accused testifying under oath is not the same as an FBI investigation.
The accused, also wanting no witnesses to testify, clearly aims for a he-said-she-said deadlock that he hopes to win “on his honest face.” He probably dreams himself sounding more credible than the outcome of criminal investigation and witness’ testimony. To me, there seems nothing more incriminating than an accused who doesn’t want witness testimony or investigations but rather just to be believed on his word.
The more I listened to him and saw his poker face, the more doubt I got about his lifeless performance. Not once does he burst out in laughter saying “that’s ridiculous.” It’s all a crafted dignified pose he gives us. I already got this notion of him being sincerely untruthful by his similarly stone-faced sincerity front through his (non-)confirmation hearings. How so? (The whole circus has suffered from much too few laughter anyway.)
He’s known for being arch-conservative but he paints himself as just objectively following precedent and law. That doesn’t add up. All the progressives who dread him on the Supreme Court and all the conservatives who love him there, are they removed from reality or is he pulling our leg? I find the latter far more plausible.
He talks like a politician, not a truthful person. He gives (and repeats) the “answers” he wants to provide and ignores most of the questions totally.
He seems to believe that a question not answered is a question not asked or not heard. This ostrich policy doesn’t work, of course. He comes out a liar for ignoring many straightforward questions.
His apparent untruthfulness doesn’t mean he’s guilty of anything. But opposite multiple accusations, he’s not worthy of being believed.
What is most worrisome though, is a judge who is a political animal, toying with and discarding truth, honesty, straightforwardness, soliciting for the US Supreme Court. We already have a con artist for president.
I feel bad for his wife who seems to have no clue about what is going on. Love makes blind – it sure does.