September 17, 2018
CAN YOU LIE ABOUT WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW?:
Weighing the Allegations against Brett Kavanaugh (DAVID FRENCH, September 16, 2018, National Review)
Do not count me among those who would minimize this alleged assault. I went to a high school that had more than its share of drunken parties, and my classmates could do crazy and stupid things, but an act like this was beyond the pale. This isn't "boys will be boys." Actions have consequences, and it's hardly unjust to tell a person that if he mistreated another human being like this -- even a long time ago -- he has to remain "merely" a judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.Since Kavanaugh has denied the story, however, the question of whether the event is so egregious that it should disqualify him is moot. At the very least, if the attack happened, he should be disqualified for lying.
If we accept the accuser's story at roughly face value, she was drunk enough to not recall details and the boys may well have been black out drunk. She did not come forward at the time, which would have allowed them to apologize and deal with their problem. And it seems entirely plausible that they would have different memories, if any, about the course of events.
None of that excuses the behavior itself, but it does suggest that "lying" about it is the potentially most bogus charge.
Posted by Orrin Judd at September 17, 2018 4:10 AM
