A few chronological points before getting to his admission.
After his very poor performance in the FOX interview — as I pointed out extensively earlier — his lawyer went public at CNN. Can she restore anything from the bad impression he made? Well, she did a great job nuancing her client’s outrageous claims to sainthood. But she did have a much easier TV time than her client, simply because the CNN reporter was far less good than the FOX reporter. He too should have asked, why, if her client is innocent, don’t they insist on an FBI investigation?
Kavanaugh’s trouble became the same as President Clinton’s
Clinton got in trouble not because of sexual misconduct but because of lying about it. Same for Kavanaugh. His FOX interview completely contradicts reports and proofs about his student behavior.
For me, the main issue is no longer if he was trashed with alcohol when he repeatedly trashed women but if he presently is an accomplished liar.
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
– George Santayana
He should have learned from that almost impeachment that whatever you do about your sexual past, you don’t lie about it.
There is another Clinton parallel. He now refuses to answer questions that he himself insisted that Clinton should be asked, 20 years ago.
The Senate Hearing
A major problem seems that those who want a right-leaning Supreme Court want him no matter what and those who want a left-leaning Court don’t want him, no matter what. That doesn’t leave much room for arguments about the case. So sad.
Still, I went to watch the Senate hearing of Kavanaugh accuser Prof. Ford. It was a very lengthy hearing but I can be short in giving my impressions.
- The accuser’s testimony was very believable.
2. The Democratic Senators interacted with her with dignity and wisdom.
3. The lady “specialist” who represented the Republican Committee members was a smiling charming disgrace. Her questioning made it seem like the accuser was the accused. If she was such a specialist, then what was there to ask? Disgraceful to see this contract killer in action.
4. And then, after a long break, the accused gave a raging opening statement. Every Israeli mature citizen of Israel knows this tone.
January 24, 2007, we heard an Israeli sitting president talk like that before he was later convicted for rape and assault and was sent off to jail. He held a press conference wherein he was fuming that journalists were persecuting him and judging him before all the evidence has been presented. I would call it the fake forceful furious offensive defense.
I can’t be fooled anymore. His phony act matches her truthfulness perfectly. I made up my mind half a minute into his initial statement. I was open to changing my mind later, but first impressions are powerful.
He makes the impression of someone who’d take no no for an answer.
Later his rant becomes less belligerent and he starts tearing and sniffing at understandable but also seemingly random moments. Effortless uncalled-for tearing is common in con artists and abusers. This is how they try to impress and prove that after all, they are human too.
5. His two best arguments are inadequate. A. I’m a good guy. But the accusation is that he acted out of character. B. The others present at the alleged party gone wrong for one 15-year old girl don’t remember it. But for them, it was a meaningless meeting. He must know that these are useless arguments. The fact that he keeps bringing up these worthless arguments means that he must be untruthful.
6. Answering the first Senator, Feinstein, he starts playing victim instead of answering. Also the next questioner, the expert, immediately gets a no. He admitted sometimes drinking too much. She asks what is too much and he says I don’t know. Untruthfulness for all to see. (Of course, he has some idea what is too much when he uses that qualification.) And this on top of all the untruthfulness that I reported in the FOX interview. I don’t know if others see it but he plays innocent but is a bad actor.
7. Next Senator. He’s rude, aggressive, avoiding to answer. He says over and over again that he is innocent and that the whole thing is unfair but refuses to support an FBI investigation and is dishonest about that too.
8. When the next Senator, a Republican, started screaming at his Democratic colleagues that they were just out to destroy this man, this is the face the accused made. Judge for yourself (my screenshot).
I’d have expected him being moved, not some triumphant arrogance.
9. He makes light of his yearbook entries though they rhyme with the accusations.
10. Then he starts moping again that his reputation is destroyed for good. This is such a dishonest manipulation to generate sympathy. Either he’s innocent, and then his reputation will stay untarnished, or he’s not and then he would deserve the denigration.
11. The accused gets irritated by the questions of Senator Blumenthal. First, he denies that a yearbook entrance was disrespectful of a certain girl. Then he says that mentioning this does great injustice to her. That is switching the blame as if the Senator wrote that entry. But it gets better.
Guilty as charged
12. In his irritation, he then says something that does not get noticed but that is most curious if not revealing. He says: “Senator, he [Mark Judge] has said and all the witnesses present ….” [say that they don’t remember such a party]. The follow-up question should have been: “All the witnesses present where?” He talked about none of the others saying remembering him being there. And 10 minutes later, 20 minutes before the end of the over 4-hour hearing, when questioned by Senator Booker he gets irritated again and says four additional times “The witnesses who were there say that it never happened.” He just spilled the beans five times!! Guilty as charged. May I be a latter-day Inspector Columbo saying: Oops; gotcha! In front of millions of witnesses around the world.
13. Most Republican Senators on the Committee spent most of their allotted time arguing their Democratic colleagues, not questioning the accused. No need. He has admitted (previous point).