Courts

Brett Kavanaugh Isn't A Credible Source About His Own Life

The Republicans want to make this a 'he said/she said' situation, but what he's said hasn't been credible so far.

By  
on

Judge Brett Kavanaugh, being sworn in at his confirmation hearings (screencap via YouTube)

There’s a reason Senate Republicans are trying to make Monday’s Brett Kavanaugh hearings a one-on-one showdown between Kavanaugh and Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. The guys always wants to reduce inquires into sexual assault to “he said/she said” credibility cases. Their belief, backed up by a lifetime of interrupting women and being promoted over women and having their raised hands recognized over women, is that in a one-on-one credibility battle, they’ll win.

They always have. The woman’s credibility will be assessed based on not just what she says, but how she says it. And on how she looks saying it. Here, Ford, a 51-year-old woman will have to tell a complicated story of assault and fear through the eyes of a 15-year-old girl, to an audience of predominately white men. Teenage fears of your parents “finding out” that you’ve been “drinking” will sound so fanciful to 80-year-old men hell-bent on completing a generational takeover of the Supreme Court.

The man’s credibility will be assessed based on his fierceness and consistency. “I did not do it.” “No.” “Never!” “I’m not like that.” “Frankly, that question is insulting to me and my family.” Here, Kavanaugh has a much easier story to tell. It’s easy to be “consistent” when your contention is that somebody else is lying. And “manly” qualities like aggressive denials or unyielding clarity will accrue to his benefit.

Senate Republicans have made the ridiculous determination that they only want to hear from Kavanaugh and Ford. Even the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas hearings had more than just the two witnesses. And we now know that Joe Biden prevented testimony from other witnesses who could have backed up Hill’s story.

In this case, there’s another witness who was allegedly in the room, but the Senate refuses to hear from him.

Sponsored

While Judge also claims that Kavanaugh did not do what Ford said he did, Judge has written extensively about how drunk he and his friends — including one “Bart O’Kavanaugh” — were in high school. He’s a terrible character witness for Kavanaugh, even though he backs up Kavanaugh’s story, so the Senate Republicans would just rather not hear from him.

Senate Republicans also don’t want to allow for any time for the FBI or the media to investigate these allegations, lest more proof emerges to back up Ford’s story. The FBI has already released a statement that’s it not their job to investigate this; the allegations have been added to Kavanaugh’s file. It’s up to Donald Trump whether to order FBI resources be brought to bear on this investigation and… it’s probably not even worth asking a man who has been credibly accused of sexually inappropriate behavior by 15 women if he intends to expend those resources.

Republicans aren’t going to allow time for any evidence to be gathered. They’re not allowing a lot of time for other accusers to come forward to the press and be vetted by responsible journalists. They’re not calling other witnesses in the room or at the party. They’re not calling Ford’s therapist.

Senate Republicans want Kavanaugh and Ford to face off against each other, mano-a-womano, because they’re confident that Kavanaugh will be deemed “more credible.” They’re convinced that they can vote for Kavanaugh, if they can tell their constituents that it was just “he said, she said.”

The only problem with their plan is that Kavanaugh has already trashed his own credibility. You’d be a fool to believe anything he says now about his personal history of sexual misconduct, when he has so far been so untruthful about his knowledge of other people’s history of sexual misconduct.

Sponsored

I started asking questions about Kavanaugh’s involvement in the Alex Kozinski scandal soon after he was announced as a nominee. You know, back in those heady days when it was cool for everybody who had ever been to Yale Law School to fawn over the guy like he was the second coming of Hammurabi.

Those questions have still not been answered, and if anything, Kavanaugh has been purposefully obtuse about his knowledge of Alex Kozinski’s conduct. Ian Millhiser is the latest to lay out the case:

Kavanaugh’s repeated claims that he has no recollection of Kozinski making sexually inappropriate comments to a law clerk — or that he never even heard anyone raise concerns about such behavior by Kozinski — are quite literally unbelievable. Unless Kozinski became a completely different person between the early 1990s, when Kavanaugh worked for Kozinski, and the mid 2000s, when [Heidi] Bond did, it is difficult to imagine Kavanaugh working in the kind of environment Bond describes and never hearing an inappropriate remark.

And even if Kavanuagh somehow did not see his boss’ behavior while he was Kozinski’s clerk, it is equally unbelievable that Kavanaugh could have traveled in these elite circles of the legal profession and somehow avoid hearing it discussed. Again, Kozinski’s behavior was so brazen that he would inappropriately kiss prominent members of the media in public settings.

Then there’s the issue of the “Gag list.” Former Kozinski clerk, Heidi Bond, has laid bare how inappropriate and offensive Alex Kozinski’s email list to clerks, friends, and journalists really was. At his hearings, Kavanaugh said: “I do not remember receiving inappropriate emails of a sexual nature from Judge Kozinski.”

That statement is not credible. Nobody with a brain is required to believe it. Kavanaugh will not tell the truth about what he saw in Kozinski’s chambers, he won’t tell the truth about what he knew about Kozsinki’s conduct, and he won’t tell the truth about some dirty emails to ALMOST SURELY received.

“A man’s word is his bond,” and Kavanaugh’s word is s**t.

And that’s not the only instance where Kavanaugh was less-than truthful during his confirmation hearings. He misled Congress about his involvement in the nominations of Bill Pryor and Charles Pickering. He’s either lying about or critically misremembering his own dissent in the Sea World case. He’s made the ridiculous contention that he grew “aggressive” after “blowing another dice game” that he says was being played for no money. Kavanaugh’s basic candor has been a thorn in his side throughout his confirmation process.

And that’s just because of what he’s said (and not said). If you start to asses Kavanaugh based on “how” he’s saying it, it looks even worse. Aside from the reports of FedSoc sycophants, Kavanaugh made a terrible witness during his confirmation hearings. He was shifty and evasive. He often answered more than was asked, only to hide behind “nominee precedent” — a term he invented entirely for his own hearings — whenever he needed to stop running his mouth. He got led into trouble by Ted Cruz who was actually trying to help him. And that’s on top of all the lying.

In a one-on-one credibility battle, it’s Kavanaugh’s credibility that needs rehabilitation. He shouldn’t be given the benefit of the doubt. I’d take the first woman I meet on the subway in a credibility battle against Kavanaugh, because Kavanaugh has already lied, misled, and obfuscated the truth under oath.

The only reason that makes people even think it’s a good idea to put a guy like him in a credibility contest against any random person is because he has a penis. But for that penis, nobody would try this. No… criminal defense attorney would be Kavanaugh ON THE STAND, not with these kind of open holes in his Kozinski story, his previous Congressional testimony, and his hazy recollection about the events of his own life.

But, with that penis, his testimony will go something like this:

Orin Hatch: This woman says you tried to kiss her.
Kamala Harris: Tried to rape her.
Hatch: I missed some of the crazy details.
Kavanaugh: Senator, I’d like to remind the committee that I have a dick.
Hatch: That’s an impressive counter to this succubus called forth from Hell by the Democrats.
Harris: What is going on here?
Hatch: Does Dr. Ford have a dick? Do you, Senator Harris?
Kavanaugh: And I’d add that I’ve never once wavered from my story that I do, indeed, have a dick.
Chuck Grassley: I’m sorry, Mr. Kavanaugh, that you and your dick have been put through this. This hearing is adjourned.

If all Kavanaugh has is his promise that he didn’t do anything wrong, there’s no earthly reason to believe him. The reservoir of credibility welling up from his pants cannot be endless.

Elie Mystal is the Executive Editor of Above the Law and the Legal Editor for More Perfect. He can be reached @ElieNYC on Twitter, or at [email protected]. He will resist.

Topics

, , , , ,