# The Kavanaugh Effect. **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [November 8, 2018, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189 "2018-11-08T14:43:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2019, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/261 "2019-01-25T18:13:06Z")
> [@CaptMurdock](#): > > He lied about his handling of William Pryor during his nomination for the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. > > Happy? I don’t know how happy **UltraVires** is, but I am not. Is [this](https://www.vox.com/2018/9/6/17828378/brett-kavanaugh-confirmation-perjury-pryor)the lie you are talking about? > [@](#): > > Grassley: Then I want to ask you, Judge Kavanaugh, you testified in 2004 that you were not involved in handling Judge Pryor’s nomination while you were in the White House counsel’s office. Is that right? > > Kavanaugh: I believe that’s correct. > > Grassley: I’m talking about the handling of it. > > Kavanaugh: Yeah, the handling. We had one person who would be assigned to each Judge. I was not, as I recall at least, I was not the primary person on that. > > Grassley: So isn’t it the case that somebody else handled the nomination and if you know who that is, I’d like to give you a chance to say so, and if you don’t, I want to suggest a name. > > Kavanaugh: I don’t remember who it was. > > Grassley: Could it have been Ben Powell? > > Kavanaugh: It sure could have been, yes. He was another associate counsel. > > Grassley: What, if any, involvement did you have? > > Kavanaugh: I don’t recall specifics. We would have met at meetings. I could have attended a moot court where we did a mock hearing. I don’t remember specifics, but it sounds – that sounds right to me, that Ben would have been the person primarily in charge of that handling it. > > Grassley: Well, I had colleagues attempting to insinuate that you interviewed Judge Pryor. The documents that we have that he was referring is one of your colleagues asking how the Pryor interview went. It certainly seems to me that this e-mail is more likely to indicate that you know the people who interviewed judge Pryor but may have even been kept in the loop because it was something that you were interested in. > > Kavanaugh: That sounds correct. I knew him. And therefore, I was interested in his process. Which part of this do you think isn’t true, and what is your “clear and obvious” evidence? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![CaptMurdock](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/captmurdock/32/11736_2.png) [@CaptMurdock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaptMurdock)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2019, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/262 "2019-01-25T18:20:03Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I don’t know how happy **UltraVires** is, but I am not. > > Is [this](https://www.vox.com/2018/9/6/17828378/brett-kavanaugh-confirmation-perjury-pryor)the lie you are talking about? Which part of this do you think isn’t true, and what is your “clear and obvious” evidence? > > Regards, > Shodan The part where he doesn’t recall who was handling it, for one thing: [It’s the Emails…](https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/live-trials-current/brett-kavanaugh-confirmation-hearing/emails-show-kavanaugh-was-much-more-involved-in-judges-nomination-than-previously-known/) > [@](#): > > On Dec. 16, 2002, Kavanaugh received an email, reviewed by The Washington Post, from another White House aide with the subject line “CA11” – a reference to the 11th Circuit. The aide, Kyle Sampson, asked: “How did the Pryor interview go?” Kavanaugh then responded: “Call me.” > [@](#): > > Then there’s this email from 2003, with Kavanaugh BCC’d: “There will be an emergency umbrella meeting tomorrow at 2:30 p.m. (right after the 1:30 call) at the law firm of Baker & Hostetler [redacted]. We need to discuss nominee Bill Pryor’s hearing next Wednesday and there are important confirmation process issues with Judge Kuhl that need to be addressed.” For a guy who “wasn’t involved” and “can’t recall who **was** involved” in Pryor’s nomination process, he’s got quite a paper trail. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2019, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/263 "2019-01-25T18:32:16Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > None of what you said gets you to step 1 of 100 for perjury. An unscientific survey of my friends show that none of us had ever heard the term “devil’s triangle” used either for a drinking game or for group sex. The only time I have ever heard the term is in reference to the Bermuda Triangle. > > None of us have ever heard the term “boofing” either. We have heard the term “boffing” that refers to sex, but it have never used it. > > Slang being what it is, isn’t it possible that some people use a particular term meaning one thing and others use it for something else? It is entirely possible that the drinking game was named that way because of the sex term and vice versa. > > In any event, there is no way, never, ever to prove that Kavanaugh committed perjury in this instance. You’ll notice that all of the cited articles were written prior to the confirmation vote in hopes of changing a few minds. And if I had not expressly stated that it would not get incontrovertible proof for a charge of perjury, then you might have a point. But, as I did specifically say that, then your post here is utterly useless, it is simply repeating what I said, but doing it in a way that makes you think that you are disagreeing and winning a point. You are not, not at all. What I said is that _I_ believe he was lying out his ass on that. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I’ll be delighted to respond to the rest of your post too, but for starters, I’d like you to answer a question for me. A simple “yes” or “no” will do. You’ve now several times suggested that the four Georgetown Prep contemporaries of Justice Kavanaugh that vouched for “Devil’s triangle” being a reference to a drinking game were somehow “coached”. Do you have any evidence of this “coaching” taking place? Yes or no? Hmmm, to answer your question in the exact way you want it answered. You know, if you want people to do that, then you should stop avoiding questions yourself, so I will answer, but not with your “simple yes or no”, as you should be well aware, a simple yes or no is a stupid way to answer such a leading question. Now, do I have incontrovertible evidence that they read newspapers or watch the news or pay any attention whatsoever to the world around them? No, I don’t. It could be that they were locked in a room stuck under a rock for the entirety of the time from the nominations to the day they were rescued and asked about slang terms. But, given even the most basic level of engagement with the world, they would be well aware of the claim that Kavanagh made about the term. So, do I have proof that they are not blind and deaf to the world around them? No, but I do believe that they followed his lead, which is what I said in the initial post that you keep trying to get me to provide rock hard evidence for that they backed his story. Now that that is cleared up, I assume that you would like to address the rest of the article, or should we assume that you are only questioning on this one point because you accept the rest of it as true? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2019, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/264 "2019-01-25T19:04:48Z")
> [@CaptMurdock](#): > > The part where he doesn’t recall who was handling it, for one thing: This is probably like the blackout thing, but we’ll run with it. What is your evidence that Kavanaugh really did remember it, fifteen years after the fact, and that it wasn’t Ben Powell? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![CaptMurdock](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/captmurdock/32/11736_2.png) [@CaptMurdock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaptMurdock)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2019, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/265 "2019-01-25T20:16:12Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > This is probably like the blackout thing, but we’ll run with it. What is your evidence that Kavanaugh really did remember it, fifteen years after the fact, and that it wasn’t Ben Powell? > > Regards, > Shodan Heh. If he _actually_ cannot remember, after being involved to the degree that he’d been getting that much email on it, I would think that his mental faculties are compromised to the point that he _really_ does not belong on the bench. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2019, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/266 "2019-01-25T20:40:55Z")
> [@CaptMurdock](#): > > Heh. > > If he _actually_ cannot remember, after being involved to the degree that he’d been getting that much email on it, I would think that his mental faculties are compromised to the point that he _really_ does not belong on the bench. What in the world would be the purpose of lying about something like that? If he remembered who was handling the confirmation, he would have just said Ben Powell. If he really remembered that it was Ben Powell, how did it help him by lying and saying that he didn’t recall? And like **Shodan** said, that was fifteen years later in a situation where many people were involved but only a single person was “handling” it. There were many confirmation processes during the Bush Administration and I’m not so sure why it is so hard to believe, indeed so “clear and obvious” that he must have known this person’s name such that it amounts to perjury. That is really scraping the bottom there. You might as well say that Ford committed perjury solely because she did not recall the location of the house. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2019, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/267 "2019-01-25T20:47:12Z")
So, ten years later he cannot remember every detail of every matter that he was not responsible for, and that makes him unfit for office? I am neither a politician nor a judge, and almost certainly less busy than Kavanaugh, but I doubt I could come up with the names of everyone who led every project at every job I worked at, especially nine years after the fact. So he got two emails nine years earlier, and he cannot come up with every detail off the top of his head on ten seconds notice. Is this the “clear and obvious” you were talking about? It looks more like a clear and obvious nothingburger, especially since the Dems could do nothing with it during his earlier hearings. Got anything else? Maybe we can do the one where he can’t remember the names of every associate at every law firm in Washington DC for the last twenty years. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![CaptMurdock](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/captmurdock/32/11736_2.png) [@CaptMurdock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaptMurdock)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2019, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/268 "2019-01-26T05:40:43Z")
Looks like Rationalization ain’t just a river in Egypt, either. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2019, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/269 "2019-01-28T20:22:32Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > … should we assume that you are only questioning on this one point because you accept the rest of it as true? No. I’m questioning this one point because it’s the easiest one I could readily recall as having been disproven. It would be a mistake to assume that I think the rest of it is true. I have previously said: > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Your list sucks. Take, for example, this one: … > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > The dispute would be about the low quality of your source, if you’re disputing that. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > It’s an indication to me that the author (of the article, this isn’t directed at you) is not interested in giving a truthful account of events or updating their list when new information comes to light. That GQ article is not a good source. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > … The fact that GQ has not corrected their mistake is an indictment of their credibility. If those statements left you with the impression that I “accept the rest of it as true”, I don’t know what else to tell you. I’m flabbergasted. ---
**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:** [January 29, 2019, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/270 "2019-01-29T01:21:37Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > No. I’m questioning this one point because it’s the easiest one I could readily recall as having been disproven. Hahaha. You think you proved something. Totes adorbs. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2019, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/271 "2019-01-29T17:07:09Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > No. I’m questioning this one point because it’s the easiest one I could readily recall as having been disproven. It would be a mistake to assume that I think the rest of it is true. I have previously said: Okay, thank you for giving us the definition of cherry picking and admitting that that is what you are doing. > [@](#): > > If those statements left you with the impression that I “accept the rest of it as true”, I don’t know what else to tell you. I’m flabbergasted. No, I get the impression that you are attempting an ad hominem fallacy, in that, by (very poorly) questioning one claim, you can use that to discredit the rest. That is poor form of argument, and there is not a single person who will be fooled by it who is not already fooled themselves into thinking that this sort of disreputable tactic is a valid method of having a productive conversation. I was giving you an out, and rather than force you to admit that you are trying to play this game, that you could then move onto another claim that you though was incorrect, but you are instead doubling down on this dishonest argument rhetoric, so I, and no one, will no longer have any interest in engaging with that sort of posting behavior. ETA: I would add the fact that your questioning of the one claim was very poorly done, and really just was you reasserting your opinion, over and over again. So, you’re “disproven” claim is still, well, disproven. Even your attempt at an ad hominem has failed, miserably. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2019, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/272 "2019-01-29T18:04:13Z")
_shrug_ I’m confident that I’ve demonstrated my point to the less-stridently-partisan readers. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2019, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/273 "2019-01-29T18:13:23Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > No, I get the impression that you are attempting an ad hominem fallacy, in that, by (very poorly) questioning one claim, you can use that to discredit the rest. Your impression is wrong. What was being attempted was an argument from authority - that Kavanaugh must be guilty because GQ says so. Discrediting one claim from GQ casts doubt on the rest of their claims. The claim “nobody from that high school ever thought the term meant that” is discredited by showing four examples of people from that high school did mean that. > [@](#): > > … I, and no one, will no longer have any interest in engaging with that sort of posting behavior. Fortunately you don’t speak for everyone, so this claim is also discredited. Regards, Shodan ---
**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:** [January 29, 2019, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/274 "2019-01-29T18:59:30Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > The claim “nobody from that high school ever thought the term meant that” is discredited by showing four examples of people from that high school did mean that. Where do those quotes come from? Who are you quoting? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2019, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/275 "2019-01-29T19:07:57Z")
The one in the quotebox came from **k9bfriender** , in post #271. I thought it was more than a tad presumptuous to try to make a sweeping claim about “no one”, but he’s free to try. It’s the Internet. I’m not the least bit concerned I might run out of people to debate with. ---
**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:** [January 29, 2019, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/276 "2019-01-29T20:47:11Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > The one in the quotebox came from **k9bfriender** , in post #271. I thought it was more than a tad presumptuous to try to make a sweeping claim about “no one”, but he’s free to try. It’s the Internet. I’m not the least bit concerned I might run out of people to debate with. What? Are you claiming that the phrase, “Nobody from that high school ever thought the term meant that,” appears in post 271? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2019, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/277 "2019-01-29T20:51:42Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > What? Are you claiming that the phrase, “Nobody from that high school ever thought the term meant that,” appears in post 271? No, I’m claiming the phrase “I, and no one, will no longer have any interest in engaging with that sort of posting behavior” does. I specified “The one in the quotebox” to try to avoid precisely the sort of confusion your post demonstrates, but I see now that was for naught. ---
**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:** [January 29, 2019, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/278 "2019-01-29T21:05:20Z")
I wasn’t asking about the his use of the quote function which includes a link back to the quoted post. I was asking about the phrase in quotation marks which I quoted. This one… “nobody from that high school ever thought the term meant that”. The only quote in my post. Not some other quote from some other post. It’s weird that I feel the need to explain this. Who is he quoting? Ray Bolger? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2019, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/279 "2019-01-29T21:23:59Z")
Why did you use the plural form (“those quotes”) if you were just asking about a singular quote? ---
**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:** [January 29, 2019, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/280 "2019-01-29T21:32:13Z")
I used the word quotes as shorthand for quotation marks. Does that matter? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189.md?page=15)