I don’t think you get it.
There are two, and only two, alternatives - everyone at Georgetown was glued to the set, or blackout drunk. If Kavanaugh wasn’t the one, he has to have been the other.
That’s logic!
Regards,
Shodan
You are not representing my position accurately.
You’ve already admitted you don’t have a source for the claim, so I don’t know that further pursuing this point is necessary. Aside from that, RitterSport asked that this thread remain civil, and I’d like to contribute to that rather than be one of the causes of the devolution into yet another shouting match. To the extent that my previous post may have have failed at that, I apologize to RitterSport.
To you, Lance Turbo, I hope you’ll give fair consideration to this plea: Please be better-prepared in the future to defend your claims with supporting evidence (and it’s a lot easier if you avoid sweeping characterizations and / or absolutes).
I have cited my claims in this and other threads on this topic.
Things that do not require cites:
[ul]
[li]People talk about big events in the days before they occur.[/li][li]The Georgetown Prep Hoyas root for the Georgetown University Hoyas in big games.[/li][li]People tend to remember who won when their team wins.[/li][/ul]
Thanks! I think it’s past that point already, so I’m pretty much just watching it develop from here; I’d love it to return to the first page style, though. I still wish we had heard from UV, but oh well. If this thread gets too nasty, I’ll ask the mods to close it.
I remember when I was in middle school and I first heard the term “blow job.” I got it confused with “snow job”. At least until I got one. 
Snow job, that is. 
A blatant Kavanugh lie:
“My personal beliefs aren’t relevant to how I decide cases,” Kavanaugh said during the second day of his confirmation hearing."
The only other explanation for saying his beliefs are never taken into account in rendering decisions, is that the nominee has something akin to delusions of grandeur in thinking that he’s a paragon of absolute objectivity, in which case he’s too mentally unstable for the job.
Of course other Supreme Court nominees have lied in similar fashion, which should also have disqualified them for the office.
When I was 10, I honestly thought “oral sex” meant “kissing”. Because I knew “oral” meant “mouth”, and I knew people would kiss in movies before they cut to them lying in bed after (implied) sex. Ergo, kissing must be the oral component of sex.
Which made my grandma’s reaction to hearing me use the term rather puzzling to me. But you know, she was from an older generation… maybe back in her day, kissing wasn’t something people talked about. 
Back on topic, for me (not a Kavanaugh supporter) the fact that he was so willing to tell what appear to be blatant lies on so many matters bothers me more than any of the particular lies (outside of those directly relevant to the sexual assault allegation). There’s something very Trumpian about being unwilling to admit to anything that makes you look bad, even the things that people would readily forgive. That shows a disregard not only for the confirmation process, but for the truth. Whether they be conservative or liberal, I’d want someone on the Court who’s more principled than that.
But that still bothered me less than his insistence that the hearing was a partisan hack job. Even if Kavanaugh thought that the timing of the hearing, or the public nature of it, was somehow orchestrated by the Democrats for political gain, he still ought to at least recognize the legitimate need to have a hearing and an investigation when a Supreme Court nominee is accused of something as serious as sexual assault. That should hold even if he’s innocent of the accusation; if you take sexual assault seriously, you should understand that such an allegation cannot be casually brushed aside.
And that still bothers me less than the fact that I think he probably did what he’s accused of, and when all is said and done he’s probably going to be confirmed anyway.
Short answer: Yes, and yes. And there are a bunch of other details of that July 1st date that line up with what Ford has said.
According to Kavanaugh’s testimony, “Timmy” is Tim Gaudette, and the other attendees “Judge, Tom, P.J., Bernie, and Squi” are Mark Judge, Tom Kaine, PJ Smyth, Bernie McCarthy, and Chris Garrett, respectively.
Mark Judge was of course the other person Ford says was in the room when she was assaulted, and PJ Smyth was someone else who she had named as being in attendance at the party. And Chris “Squi” Garrett was the person who Rachel Mitchell called “the connection between [Ford] and Brett Kavanaugh” and who Ford acknowledged during her Senate testimony was someone she “went out with for a few months”.
As for Tim Gaudette, whose house the party was at:
Ford also said she saw Judge 6 to 8 weeks later working at a supermarket. Judge’s book says this about the summer of 1982:
Moreover, we know from Kavanaugh’s diary that football camp started on August 22, so it seems quite possible that Ford could have seen Judge working at the store sometime in mid-August – i.e., 6 to 8 weeks after July 1.
In particular, if we suppose Judge’s “few weeks” working at the supermarket before football camp were roughly the first three weeks of August*, then Ford’s “6 to 8 weeks before” would be something like June 6th to July 10th. And sure enough Kavanaugh’s calendar shows that within that time he was at a social gathering of a similar size to what Ford described, at a house that was less than 11 miles from the country club Ford says was nearby, and that also in attendance were two other people that Ford had said were there, and another person who was probably the one member of Kavanaugh’s social circle most likely to invite Ford to such a gathering. None of this proves an assault took place, of course, but if (as Kavanaugh claims) no gathering like Ford described actually happened, then it seems pretty coincidental that things would line up quite so consistently with it.
In fact, why would Ford even remember that Judge worked at the “Potomac Village Safeway” 36 years after the fact, if not due to the trauma she says he was a part of? Even if she read his book, it didn’t name the store, and it’s not like they grew up in an area with only one supermarket. That would be a really strange detail to remember for 36 years about someone you weren’t particularly close with who attended a nearby high school, unless there’s a reason. If Ford’s claim is true, there’s an obvious reason she remembers.
Again, that doesn’t prove Ford’s claim that she was assaulted, but it’s one more detail that lines up with her story. And I don’t really think it’s necessary to have “proof” here, certainly not “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”. As has been said, it’s a job interview, not a criminal trial. And in my opinion at least, “there’s a pretty good chance he tried to rape someone” ought to be reason enough to deny somebody a Supreme Court seat.
*I suppose it’s also possible Judge meant that he worked at the supermarket in late June and early July, and then took the rest of the summer off until football camp, which would mean the July 1 date wouldn’t fit with Ford’s testimony. Hopefully, the FBI will look for info on the dates of Judge’s employment, as well as things like whether the house where Tim Gaudette lived in 1982 is consistent with Ford’s description.
Name checks out.
As Ford said she was dating “Squi” (Gaudette), she would certainly have known if he was there, if this is the party where she claims she was abused. Why did she not mention him there?
If this is the party she has described and Gaudette was there…would it be likely that Kavanugh (and Judge) would try to sexually assault one of his best friend’s girlfriends while he was in the other room? That seems unlikely in the extreme.
What if… hear me out this is going to sound crazy… what if Squi left at some point?
Here’s a Patrick Leahy Twitter thread outlining Kavanaugh’s numerous lies re Manny Miranda.
These are all 21st century lies about shit done in the 21st century. No high school yearbooks. No he said she said.
Straight up bald faced lies.
IF (and it’s beginning to sound like a mighty big if at this point) this was the party, Squi would likely have been the boy who drove her there and then, possibly, gave her a ride home. If that is the case, or if he was simply there, she would almost certainly named him as one of the people present. That she didn’t do so means that it is unlikely this was the date this party supposedly happened.
If he did give her a ride or simply talked to her, he would have likely noticed she was acting unusually, even if she didn’t tell him what his best friend just tried to do to her. There’s no indication he said anything about that when he was re-interviewed by the FBI, as one of the Democratic Senators who reviewed the report would have almost certainly pointed it out by this point.
There’s other contextual evidence that indicates this is unlikely to be the party - Kavanaugh wouldn’t have released the calendar to the committee if it happened and this was inculpatory evidence; and the timing of the events described in the calendar is all wrong for the event Ford described. If we accept that this was a true version of events (and if we are accepting the events described, we have to look at all the events described that day in the context of Ford’s testimony and statements to the media), there would be insufficient time for the boys to get as drunk as she described after their football conditioning practice and still get there in time for an event that Ford described as happening early in the evening.
I don’t mean to call you out, because you’re only the latest response to this line of inquiry, but did you mean to post this in the larger Kavanaugh thread? This post, and the ones that led up to it, have zero to do with the OP of this thread.
As the question was “Do you think Kavanaugh lied”, and it was in response to a point raised on this thread by another poster (quoted), yes.
The question of whether Kavanaugh lied has to be weighed against whether Ford lied. I think it is likely she did.
That she has no memory of how she got home in what was a ~6 mile (as the crow flies) walk is problematic. Did she hitch-hike? Walk 6 miles (which would be memorable in itself)? Call her parents? Ask someone at the party for a ride? She remains silent on a point that most people remember.
We know that people who describe an actual traumatic event are very descriptive about the aftermath - they describe who they told about it, how they felt emotionally, whether they took a bath what happened in the days proceeding, etc. Even if they choose not to tell the police or anyone else, their narratives are very explicit (even sexual assault victims) about the emotional impact and how that led them to act in the hours and days afterwards. False statements about a hoax event, on the other hand, often end abruptly. “And then he left…and that’s about it.” And that’s the equivalent of what we have in Ford’s statement.
I don’t think this was a lie. Slang is regional, idiosyncratic within a clique, and changes over time. The meaning those terms have now is not the meaning they had then. I do recall “boof” and “boofing” being used as a term for flatulence in the 1980s, especially in the New England area. Others have the same recollections. “Devil’s Triangle” was more popularly associated at that time as another name for the Bermuda Triangle, still a popular subject for discussion in the early 1980s among teens (there was even a 1974 film titled "Devil’s Triangle narrated by Vincent Price with a King Crimson soundtrack that was shown on TV in the early 1980s - it’s on YouTube), and would more likely to be appropriated as a name for a teen drinking game than a planned group sex act that one would put in one’s calendar. I was as aware as anyone else of slang terms for sex acts in the 1980s, and do not recall this term being popularly - or ever -used for that act back then. I may be wrong on this, but there were quite a few slang dictionaries published back then, as well as books about sex that included nicknames for the act. I’ve looked in Schoenfeld, The Joy of Sex and its sequels, and other sources, and there’s nothing. If there is, perhaps one of you could point towards a contemporaneous source.
Kavanaugh would be very unlikely to share a calendar with the committee if he used those terms in a modern manner back then - even those who detest him for partisan reasons know he’s not an imbecile, but a man who knows his way around evidence.
The evidence that Kavanaugh would use the same terms then as they are used now or that he would knowingly provide inculpatory evidence to the committee that would decide his fate is unlikely, so I would not describe this as a lie.
Thanks for responding! What do you think of the Renate thing?