I wish whichever Dem senator he made this claim to had called him on it. This is an obvious lie, and one not open to interpretation, and thus would have been an excellent demonstration of his perfidy for the record.
The theatrical goal should have been making him blow up, not showing the world who the adult in the room is.
Have you ever destroyed a bully by refusing to be bullied? I have, once, in 65 years. Thereâs nothing sweeter. Thatâs what they should have gone for.
2 Likes
-
He was 16-17, what older friends 21+ were buying all these kids so much beer (keep in mind, he drank a lot). Either that or he had fake IDS, either way crimes that were not asked about.
-
lots of holes in that as well. Did they all carpool to the party, whoâs car? More info etcâŚ
Total frustration here, too. When al the Republicans on the committee, and Kavanaugh himself, kept saying things like âthe FBI doesnât draw conclusionsââthe Dems should have come back with responses like âWell why the hell do we have an FBI thenâ and should have pointed out an X-ray doesnât draw conclusions but someone who has expertise to interpret it CAN.
1 Like
All the drinking alledged by Dr. Ford, and indicated in Kavanaughâs own calendar were when he was 17 and unambiguously not allowed to drink in any state in the US.
When he was a junior, seniors were allowed to drink, is a true statement. Juniors were not. When he became a senior, seniors were no longer allowed to drink legally.
1 Like
Different states did different things. In Massachusetts, I was legal for nine months and illegal for fifteen months when it was raised to 20. Maryland grandfathered when it raised it to 21. There was similar timing for the state that I went to college in, but I donât recall that ever made a significant dent in my drinking. He couldnât drink legally, but it would not have been difficult for him to obtain beer. In my town Massachusetts, there were one or two stores that regularly didnât check IDâs of my friends who looked older. He would typically buy a case that then got split 4 ways.
Pushing him on underage drinking might have made more unhinged and led to him making even more mistakes, but I think the Dâs didnât want to make that a new standard for court or cabinet appointees.
So it is entirely plausible that he was not aware that the law had changed and thought when he turned 18 he could drink like the guys one year older than him. Insisting he thought that is not perjury. He is wrong, but that not the same as intentionally lying.
Problem is that the events in questions all happened when he was 17 (in the summer of 1982; he turned 18 in Feb 1983) and had nothing to do with legal drinking. He is intentionally creating a misimpression, that it was legal for seniors to drink, when a significant portion of his drinking career took place when he was 17. That I consider lying. Not technically perjury I donât think but definitely dishonest.
1 Like
He was 17 in 1982. No ambiguity.
Plausible? Only if you assume that either he or the listener is an utter imbecile.
2 Likes
Kavanaught and his crowd did their drinking at homes in the wealthy Maryland suburbs of D.C. (Bethesda, Potomac, etc.). The kids knew the police wouldnât bust them ⌠and if they got busted their wealthy parents would get them out of trouble.
Kavanaugh and his crowd lived in a privileged bubble.
2 Likes
He wrote on his calendar in 1982, when he was 17, that he was drinking illegally. In 1982 his mother was not yet a judge, but did work as an attorney in the county prosecutors office. I wished a D senator would have had the balls to ask him if he ever told his mother than he was going over to Timâs to drink beers with Judge and PJ when he was 17. She was in the room, too.
1 Like
I think he started drinking heavily as a teenager and is today a dry drunk. Heâs basically an alcoholic and it shows in his broken capillaries who probably canât wait til itâs 5:00 somewhere so happy hour can begin.
I would imagine that the parents had a supply available and were well aware that the underage kids would be drinking it up at the party they made sure not to be anywhere near.
Maybe, but its worth asking. Either way we are talking about them committing crimes with others for years.
More important than the drinking age by far was the July 1 date in his calendar. That entry could easily have described exactly the gathering that Dr. Ford described. Mitchell, for all her deficiencies was actually asking about that, but was cut off by Grahamâs idiotic tirade. Yet no Dem jumped in to take that up.
A point which should be made is that Ms Mitchell did her best, under weird circumstances, to get to the truth, just as she should have. She was also a victim of the Republicans yesterday.
1 Like
Klobuchaâs grace was admirable. She pointed out today if she acted like Kavanaugh in his court, he would have thrown her out. Women are trained to handle things without display of emotion. I would have preferred she not answer his question about her drinking. He did apologize after the break.
For a man to put the blame for Kavanaughâs behavior on Klobucher is something I thought at least some men today refrain from doing. Change takes time.
Washington Post on this very point. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/27/kavanaugh-is-pressed-key-july-entry-his-calendar-only-point/?utm_term=.81aaa6c29044
On twitter there was discussion with several amateur sleuths comparing the July 1 calendar entry to the two testimonies with contributions from people living in the area of the Columbia country club on @seth Abramson twitter feed, Worth checking out.
Jcs: Iâm not blaming her, I think I pointed out that others also did less than they could have, (Whitehouse, Leary) but at this moment fire could have been fought with fire to great effect. Also, all of them let Feinstein twist in the wind not rebutting GOP argument that this was all her fault, until, finally, at the end, she somehow claimed some time to refute it herself.
Since today is all about women breaking out of traditional roles and stereotypes, yesterday would have been an excellent moment to do so. Being nicer than Trump hasnât cut it yet and still wonât.
But it didnât happen so weâll have to settle for half a loaf.
True, but you have to read his remarks carefully. He never says it was legal for him to drink; he says it was legal for Seniors to drink. Kavanaugh himself was 17 and just a Junior at the time. Thus, seniors would have been 18 (generally speaking) at the time in question and of legal drinking age. Thatâs some deft phrasing. Itâs similar to his repeated response to Democrats pressing him to endorse an FBI investigation that he would go along with whatever the committee wanted to do. It gave the impression that he was open to such an investigation, but he knew full well that Grassley would never request one. Durbin still managed to make him look like the fraud he is, though.