# Kavanaugh supporters: Do you think he lied? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [September 30, 2018, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kavanaugh-supporters-do-you-think-he-lied/822225 "2018-09-30T20:02:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2018, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kavanaugh-supporters-do-you-think-he-lied/822225/21 "2018-10-01T01:18:02Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > I think this is the same fallacy as those who criticized the Democrats’ nominating process after Hillary Clinton lost to Trump. The Democrats, it was said, should have nominated someone else, someone without so much negative baggage. The thing is, whoever they nominated would have been subject to the finest of fine-tooth combs from the Republicans looking for whatever negative baggage they could find. > > Same thing here; you think a different nominee for the court could just breeze right through. That’s not necessarily true. If a different person was put forward for the court, they’d get the same scrutiny that Kavanaugh got. I think (at least, I hope) that there are conservative judges with fewer and smaller skeletons in their closets than were found in Kavanaugh’s, but we can’t just assume that Trump would pick one. > > For that matter, I’m not even sure Trump could pick someone with a cleaner record. As I understand it, all the accusations against Kavanaugh were made after his name was announced. It didn’t matter how carefully Trump vetted Kavanaugh, there was no information on his assault(s) to be found. You make your pick, announce the name, and hope nothing awful like this comes to light. That was true for Kavanaugh, it would be true for anyone Trump put up in his place. Neil Gorsuch pretty much breezed right through. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2018, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kavanaugh-supporters-do-you-think-he-lied/822225/22 "2018-10-01T01:19:33Z")
So you’re arguing that the Republican viewpoint is that it’s best to die on this hill because there’s no guarantee that _any_ nominee would be less prone to untruth? ---
**Author:** ![DinoR](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dinor/32/2821_2.png) [@DinoR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DinoR)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2018, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kavanaugh-supporters-do-you-think-he-lied/822225/23 "2018-10-01T01:20:06Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > Thanks for the response, but did you read the OP? I didn’t mention the sexual assault allegation at all, really, only indirectly when it came to Judge’s lawyer’s letter. > > What do you think about the (IMO) lies in the actual OP? If you want to talk about the assault allegations, I think that belongs in the monster thread, not really here. Thanks. The first three are still based on decades old memories that will have altered with recall over the years. His answers about yearbook comments, his group’s slang usage and his drinking habits are likely all only loosely based on the reality but may well be exactly how he remembers events. Who knows. Distant memories jjust aren’t reliable evidence for assessing fact or veracity. The last is really an assertion about a letter that he didn’t write. I’d call that one probably not lying but ignorant of specifics and put on the spot. Assessing whether he had read the whole thing and developed a legal opinion about whether perjury was in play is hard. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2018, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kavanaugh-supporters-do-you-think-he-lied/822225/24 "2018-10-01T01:32:33Z")
> [@DigitalC](#): > > Neil Gorsuch pretty much breezed right through. > [@andros](#): > > So you’re arguing that the Republican viewpoint is that it’s best to die on this hill because there’s no guarantee that _any_ nominee would be less prone to untruth? Sure, it’s possible that someone will be nominated and nothing scandalous or disqualifying will be discovered about them before the confirmation. Whether the Republicans should choose to die on this hill is up to them. In a sense, it makes them look worse to cling to Kavanaugh as if to say “we won’t find anyone better.” My argument is that we can’t assume they have an easy way out by just nominating someone squeaky clean in Kavanaugh’s place. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2018, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kavanaugh-supporters-do-you-think-he-lied/822225/25 "2018-10-01T01:40:58Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > That’s an interesting perspective, and it’s certainly not my recollection that people lie to the Senate regularly. Do you have any examples? Just a couple of recent high-profile examples that come to mind: [Harry Reid lied about Mitt Romney’s taxes. He’s still not sorry.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/15/harry-reid-lied-about-mitt-romneys-taxes-hes-still-not-sorry/?utm_term=.8708ae3775c6) [James Clapper’s perjury, and why DC made men don’t get charged for lying to Congress](https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/01/19/james-clappers-perjury-dc-made-men-dont-get-charged-lying-congress-jonathan-turley-column/1045991001/): > [@](#): > > Former National Intelligence Director James Clapper is about celebrate one of the most important anniversaries of his life. March 13th will be the fifth anniversary of his commission of open perjury before the Senate Intelligence Committee. More importantly, it also happens to be when the statute of limitations runs out — closing any possibility of prosecution for Clapper. As the clock runs out on the Clapper prosecution, Democrats like Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) have charged that Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen committed perjury when she insisted that she could not recall if President Donald Trump called Haiti and African countries a vulgar term. The fact is that perjury is not simply tolerated, it is rewarded, in Washington. In a city of made men and women, nothing says loyalty quite as much as lying under oath. > > Even in a city with a notoriously fluid notion of truth, Clapper’s false testimony was a standout. … > [@RitterSport](#): > > … And, regarding your first sentence, there’s almost no way you would ever know absolutely one way or the other whether he definitely lied, or simply mis-remembered or something else. However, the evidence is pretty clear that he was lying, as you also believe is probable. … This is a fair point. Short of someone confessing to lying, or something like an email or recorded conversation where they acknowledge it, it would be very difficult to prove conclusively. > [@RitterSport](#): > > … If you have questions for me about my position that I didn’t make clear above, I’m happy to respond. I may come back with some more after I mull this whole thing over some more. ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2018, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kavanaugh-supporters-do-you-think-he-lied/822225/26 "2018-10-01T01:47:30Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > 1. Do you think he lied when asked about the meaning of the Renate thing? > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Probably not. I don’t think we have discussed this too much in the other threads, but this is one of the most obvious lies. Why are you leaning toward him telling the truth here? His story doesn’t even make sense. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2018, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kavanaugh-supporters-do-you-think-he-lied/822225/27 "2018-10-01T01:50:50Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Just a couple of recent high-profile examples that come to mind: > > [Harry Reid lied about Mitt Romney’s taxes. He’s still not sorry.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/15/harry-reid-lied-about-mitt-romneys-taxes-hes-still-not-sorry/?utm_term=.8708ae3775c6) > > [James Clapper’s perjury, and why DC made men don’t get charged for lying to Congress](https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/01/19/james-clappers-perjury-dc-made-men-dont-get-charged-lying-congress-jonathan-turley-column/1045991001/): > … I agree about James Clapper. I cannot believe he got away with that. I don’t think Harry Reid counts – Senators lying to each other seems different than someone testifying under oath to Congress. But, we can agree to disagree on that. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2018, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kavanaugh-supporters-do-you-think-he-lied/822225/28 "2018-10-01T01:58:26Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > Thanks for replying. Do you still think he should be confirmed? In my mind, lying under oath to the Senate would seem to be disqualifying. I’d like to know why you may think otherwise. > [@Procrustus](#): > > About which part? And is that disqualifying in your view? > > Is lying to Congress about the memos from “spies” worse than lying about Devil’s Triangles? Is the lying disqualifying? In an ideal world I would hope perjury was treated seriously. Practically speaking, especially concerning sexual or other activity as a teen or 20 years past I think this is one of those things that people who are in the situation Kavanaugh is in, the behavior we would like to see is vastly different than the behavior the person on the hot seat thinks the court of public opinion wants to see. In this age of mass media and social media we aren’t seeing performances for people who want to dispassionately dissect an issue and figure out optimal solutions or suitable candidates or nominees. It’s a world of memes and emotions and how to manipulate those for one’s benefit is still a work in progress. So, to make a that answer a bit shorter. Ideally yes it should be disqualifying, I think politicians and others in positions of power should behave much better and that includes being honest and not acting like a belligerent ass in the senate. I’d like to see 6-3 conservative court. But there has to be a better nominee at this point. I’d be willing for Trump to renominate Garland in order to mend fences that I think need mending. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2018, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kavanaugh-supporters-do-you-think-he-lied/822225/29 "2018-10-01T02:07:34Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Is the lying disqualifying? In an ideal world I would hope perjury was treated seriously. Practically speaking, especially concerning sexual or other activity as a teen or 20 years past I think this is one of those things that people who are in the situation Kavanaugh is in, the behavior we would like to see is vastly different than the behavior the person on the hot seat thinks the court of public opinion wants to see. > > In this age of mass media and social media we aren’t seeing performances for people who want to dispassionately dissect an issue and figure out optimal solutions or suitable candidates or nominees. It’s a world of memes and emotions and how to manipulate those for one’s benefit is still a work in progress. > > So, to make a that answer a bit shorter. Ideally yes it should be disqualifying, I think politicians and others in positions of power should behave much better and that includes being honest and not acting like a belligerent ass in the senate. > > I’d like to see 6-3 conservative court. But there has to be a better nominee at this point. I’d be willing for Trump to renominate Garland in order to mend fences that I think need mending. Thanks for this thoughtful response. If I read it correctly, I think you’re saying that is should be disqualifying. But, in this social media nightmare that we find ourselves in, it may not be. I also read this as saying you personally would rather have someone else nominated at this point, so you’re (at least) leaning towards this being disqualifying. And with that, I sign off for the night. I may not be able to respond much tomorrow (month end always brings tons of work), but I’ll be reading the responses I’m sure. I appreciate the mostly civil tone so far! RS ---
**Author:** ![kenobi\_65](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kenobi_65/32/13178_2.png) [@kenobi\_65](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kenobi_65)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2018, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kavanaugh-supporters-do-you-think-he-lied/822225/30 "2018-10-01T02:14:24Z")
One of the things he said in his testimony on Thursday particularly rankled me. I think that it’s, at best, highly (and intentionally) deceptive, and, at worst, a flat-out lie. [As I noted last night in the main Kavanaugh thread](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21239397&postcount=5317), when asked about drinking when he was in high school, he said ([source](http://dcist.com/2018/09/local_laws_kavanaugh_hearing.php)): > [@](#): > > “The drinking age as I noted was 18, so the seniors were legal. Senior year in high school, people were legal to drink.” Note that he didn’t say “some seniors” – he said “the seniors,” pretty clearly wanting to make it seem like his, and his friends’, drinking as seniors wasn’t that big of a deal. The thing is: 1. Yes, the drinking age in Maryland was 18 at one point. It went up to 21 as of July 1, 1982. Kavanaugh and his friends were in the Class of 1983, meaning that, as they started their senior year of high school in August or September of 1982, at which point, the drinking age in Maryland was _not_ 18 – it was 21. And, I will guarantee you that a bunch of high schoolers who loved drinking beer, as Kavanaugh and his friends admittedly did, were going to be _very_ aware of this change, because it meant that the legal drinking age was being raised just before they reached it. 2. When the drinking age was raised to 21, Kavanaugh was still 17 (and seven months away from his 18th birthday), and the odds are very high that the vast majority of his classmates were still under 18, as well. In my experience, unless they’ve been held back for some reason (and, as I understand it, the practice of “redshirting” wasn’t nearly as common 40+ years ago as it is now) most U.S. students are age 17 as they start their senior years of high school, and then turn 18 sometime during that school year (or during the summer afterwards). In short, Kavanaugh lied (or, charitably, gave misleading answers): - The drinking age was _not_ 18 when Kavanaugh was a senior. - The odds are high that most of the members of his class were _not_ of legal drinking age during their senior year. ---
**Author:** ![KidCharlemagne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed8c4c/32.png) [@KidCharlemagne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KidCharlemagne)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2018, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kavanaugh-supporters-do-you-think-he-lied/822225/31 "2018-10-01T02:18:06Z")
> [@DinoR](#): > > How about neither strongly opposed to or supportive of Kavanagh? > > Memories are fallible. Eye witnesses 30 minutes after an event frequently remember things that contradict other eye witnesses and physical evidence. We’re more than 30 years from the events that are being talked about. Even if we created a time machine tomorrow that allowed us confirm all the facts we can’t really say that any given error is a lie. Memories change with time; everytime we remember an event [our memory of that event changes](https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2012/09/your-memory-is-like-the-telephone-game). It’s possible to tell the truth the whole truth, and nothing but the truth based on memory and still be wildly wrong. The truth as we remember it just isn’t very well correlated with fact. I simply haven’t seen enough to reliably assess fact about the allegations lets alone try to determine if someone is lying. > > I have personal experience with a relatively extreme example. One of my fellow volunteers at the crisis center I worked at for many years had been in counseling on and off for years dealing with a number of issues. Somewhere along the line someone had suggested hypnosis. The hypnotist performed regression therapy. She was one of many that remembered her parents being part of a Satanic cult that sexually abused children and performed human sacrifice. Her traumatic feelings were real. Her PTSD was real. Her memories were real. They were as real as my memory of lunch today. Those real memories were unlikely to have even the slightest basis in fact, though. I listened to her and supported her working through the real trauma brought on by those memories; fact didn’t matter for that. I wouldn’t, however, have held her memories against her parents or felt a need to decide who was lying if they refuted those memories. This is something I wrote in another Kavanaugh thread re memory: Honestly memory, in this case, plays very little role. If you believe that Ford 1. Is telling the truth 2. Has, and had at the time, a reasonable definition of sexual assault 3. Came to the conclusion she was sexually assaulted at the time of the event. 4. Saw her attacker clearly Then you really can’t make claims about the potential effect of memory. Details may change, but the fact that “Kavanaugh sexually assaulted me” is not one of them ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2018, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kavanaugh-supporters-do-you-think-he-lied/822225/32 "2018-10-01T02:25:05Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > I have a related question, assuming that our Kavanaugh supporters are willing to accept the facts that he clearly has lied about various items during this process. > > The issue of course is that these lies and his behavior decades past are not considered disqualifying given what they believe his views are and how he will impact the court’s decisions going forward. But that is what I don’t get. A quick withdrawal without admission of guilt would have allowed another equally or more conservative jurist to have been selected and sail through. The ONLY advantage this particular selection now has that I can see is its divisiveness, is its Trumpian creating distrust in all the branches and institutions of American governance, its destruction of American representative democracy as a model worthy of emulation by other nations, and its thumbing the nose at #metoo putting those uppity wommin in their places. And maybe revving a circle the wagons mentality for key senate seat races. > > So the question, given that the high probability if withdrawn quickly was still a very conservative jurist still getting in, what are your other reasons that make sticking this one out worthwhile? I’ve always believed that liberals should choose to read at least one source of right-wing commentary regularly because it’s smart to know what the other guys are thinking. In the past week many right wingers have written columns that directly answer your question. [Here’s one](https://www.steynonline.com/8881/the-turning-point), you can find many more if you want to. If you read what they are actually writing, you would not be able to honestly say that their goal is “creating distrust” or “putting those uppity women in their places”. Their basic argument (which is not mine) goes like this: 1. Brett Kavanaugh has been around, has been serving on the Circuit Court since 2012, has been part of Washington establishment institutions more much longer, and in all that time prior to two weeks ago there had never been so much as a rumor of him committing sexual assault. Among people who know him well and have spend a lot of time around him, scores testify to his good character and none think that he is a sex criminal. He has been through FBI background checks multiple times and nothing whatsoever against him has ever come up. And when he was first nominated this summer, the liberal media went into their usual hysterical attempt to attack his character, and all that they could find is that he once bought a lot of baseball tickets. So putting that all together, the evidence is overwhelming that he is innocent. 2. Diane Feinstein had the letter in July but chose to keep it from the committee and the public until September. She refuses to say why. There is only one plausible explanation why, which is that she didn’t care about the committee knowing the truth. She only cared about trying to delay the confirmation vote in a last-ditch attempt to block Kavanaugh’s nomination. It’s a purely political maneuver. 3. So if the Republicans fold yet again, they would be giving Feinstein what she wants and encouraging more such maneuvers in the future. Therefore they should instead hold the vote and confirm Kavanaugh. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2018, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kavanaugh-supporters-do-you-think-he-lied/822225/33 "2018-10-01T02:31:21Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > I don’t think we have discussed this too much in the other threads, but this is one of the most obvious lies. Why are you leaning toward him telling the truth here? His story doesn’t even make sense. Especially because the woman in question already made clear that Kavanaugh’s explanation is bullshit. Apparently Flake said on 60 Minutes tonight that if it is shown that Kavanaugh lied under oath, then the nomination is dead. We shall see. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2018, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kavanaugh-supporters-do-you-think-he-lied/822225/34 "2018-10-01T03:04:40Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > Anyway, if you do think he lied, should that be disqualifying? When I was young and a Democrat, I was, for all intents and purposes, taught that lying by high officials doesn’t matter. When I was in middle school and high school, Bill Clinton was President. Jennifer Flowers said that she had an affair with him. Paula Jones sued him for sexual harassment. Kathleen Willey accused him of sexual assault in the White House. The story of his affair with Monica Lewinsky went public. Other women accused him or rape or sexual assault. Bill Clinton said it was all false and he’d never had sex or done anything with any of them. Later he acknowledged the affairs with Flowers and Lewinsky were true and reached a settlement with Jones. But for a long time, he lied about all of it. Repeatedly. He lied under oath, when called to testify in the Paula Jones case. Then he lied to a grand jury investigating that lie. He went on TV and looked straight at the camera and lied to the whole country. When Congress began impeachment proceedings, the House Judiciary Committee sent Clinton 81 questions to answer as part of their investigation. He lied in his responses. The party line on this from every Democrat, from Clinton himself through Congress and the media down to my friends and family, could be summarized like this: “Bill Clinton was elected to be President and he does a good job at that. I don’t approve of what he does in the bedroom but it’s irrelevant to his job as President and lying about it, even under oath, is also ok.” Republicans disagreed, of course, and the house of Representatives impeached Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice. The Senate found him not guilty on a mainly party-line vote. So it seems that 20 years ago, the Democrats thought that lying about sex under oath by the President of the United States was no big deal, while the Republicans that it was a big enough deal to merit impeachment. Today in the Kavanaugh case, each party holds the opposite position of what it held then. If in 2038, some Democrat tells some minor league lies about sex under oath, the Democrats will revert to saying that it doesn’t matter and the Republicans will be [shocked, shocked!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM_A4Skusro) and demand an investigation for perjury. Politics is not a good career for those with consistent moral principles. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2018, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kavanaugh-supporters-do-you-think-he-lied/822225/35 "2018-10-01T03:09:25Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > … If you read what they are actually writing, you would not be able to honestly say that their goal is “creating distrust” or “putting those uppity women in their places”. Their basic argument (which is not mine) goes like this: … > > \ That explanation is, I think, covered under the first “advantage” mentioned: its divisiveness, putting what is perceived by them as maneuvering and an attempt at payback for Merrick Garland’s treatment, in its place. And to clarify - I do not think most Senate Republicans have as _their_ goal creating distrust of all of America’s governing institutions, having the FBI and the Judiciary join Congress and the Presidency in broad disrespect. I don’t even think it is Trump’s explicit goal so much as it his tactic to accomplish his goals. It is of course Putin’s explicit goal but that is other threads … It is however the result and one that GOP leadership is willing to accept and embrace as a price of achieving other ends. ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2018, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kavanaugh-supporters-do-you-think-he-lied/822225/36 "2018-10-01T03:27:55Z")
[Chad Ludington’s Statement on Kavanaugh’s Drinking and Senate Testimony](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=21240575) > [@](#): > > I can unequivocally say that in denying the possibility that he ever blacked out from drinking, and in downplaying the degree and frequency of his drinking, Brett has not told the truth. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2018, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kavanaugh-supporters-do-you-think-he-lied/822225/37 "2018-10-01T03:42:46Z")
> [@kenobi\_65](#): > > In short, Kavanaugh lied (or, charitably, gave misleading answers): > > - The drinking age was _not_ 18 when Kavanaugh was a senior. > - The odds are high that most of the members of his class were _not_ of legal drinking age during their senior year. In addition, it’s hard to believe Kavanugh began his drinking career in the summer of 1982, at the ripe old age of 17. If his beer habit started when he was younger, then him focusing on his senior year is extra disingenuous. ---
**Author:** ![kenobi\_65](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kenobi_65/32/13178_2.png) [@kenobi\_65](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kenobi_65)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2018, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kavanaugh-supporters-do-you-think-he-lied/822225/38 "2018-10-01T03:54:12Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > [Chad Ludington’s Statement on Kavanaugh’s Drinking and Senate Testimony](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=21240575) Lance, your link isn’t right – it creates a new reply to another thread on the SDMB. ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2018, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kavanaugh-supporters-do-you-think-he-lied/822225/39 "2018-10-01T04:04:38Z")
> [@kenobi\_65](#): > > Lance, your link isn’t right – it creates a new reply to another thread on the SDMB. Damn it… [Chad Ludington’s Statement on Kavanaugh’s Drinking and Senate Testimony](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/30/us/politics/chad-ludington-statement-brett-kavanaugh.html) > [@](#): > > I can unequivocally say that in denying the possibility that he ever blacked out from drinking, and in downplaying the degree and frequency of his drinking, Brett has not told the truth. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2018, 7:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kavanaugh-supporters-do-you-think-he-lied/822225/40 "2018-10-01T07:09:03Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > When I was young and a Democrat, I was, for all intents and purposes, taught that lying by high officials doesn’t matter. > > When I was in middle school and high school, Bill Clinton was President. Jennifer Flowers said that she had an affair with him. Paula Jones sued him for sexual harassment. Kathleen Willey accused him of sexual assault in the White House. The story of his affair with Monica Lewinsky went public. Other women accused him or rape or sexual assault. Bill Clinton said it was all false and he’d never had sex or done anything with any of them. Later he acknowledged the affairs with Flowers and Lewinsky were true and reached a settlement with Jones. Pretty sure that he did **not** admit to wrongdoing in any of the settlements. It was (like so many of the things he did in the last 2 or so years of his Presidency), to help his wife with her political career, in this case putting the scandal to rest. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kavanaugh-supporters-do-you-think-he-lied/822225.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kavanaugh-supporters-do-you-think-he-lied/822225.md?page=3)