really-so Kavanaugh admits he was a drinker in college. He claimed he wasn't trashed every night (how do you get the grades to get into Yale Law as a white male in the 80s if you aren't studying constantly) and he never passed out. Some leftwing classmates of his said he was trashed frequently. One-a left wing female admitted he never abused women though
so it isn't a case where he said "I never got drunk" and they said-"he was drunk frequently"
rather its OPINIONS as to heavy drinking. Nothing to see, move on
And yet as an attorney you are perfectly well aware that lay witnesses are able to testify to whether someone appeared drunk to them and what they did. This is because we all know what drunkenness looks like. That kind of "opinion" isn't invalid because it's just an opinion. It's valid because no matter what tolerance someone has, once they are slurring their words and stumbling, they are generally agreed to be drunk. That's just what it means.
I will say: shame on the Dems for focusing on the terms "black out" and "pass out". That was stupid. It gave people outs to defend. Some people use "black out" to mean the whole night, but most mean it to refer to part of a night. An out: maybe he thought he was answering a question about not remembering an entire night (I actually did that with an entire day and never touched
that again).
Some people use "pass out" to mean
I'm going to go to my room to sleep on my bed because I'm too ****ed to enjoy this anymore. Others use it to mean literally falling over unconscious due to alcoholc toxicity. An out: maybe he thought it meant collapse to the floor spontaneously.
Screw all that.
The bottom line is that he presented himself as a student focused on school and athletics, who only sometimes drank "too many beers". The people who drank with him present him as someone who pretty much always drank too many beers, to the point of slurring and stumbling regularly. Is that a literal "black out"? A figurative one? I don't know and I don't care. I watched the hearing - I'll have to make up that time this Sunday, I think - and my impression is that he revealed too much partisanship and too much defensive dishonesty.
This did
not happen with Gorsuch. It would've been so easy to get another conservative.
I really cannot fathom how you go about accusing all sorts of people of suffering from "TDS", yet base your defense of Kavanaugh's drinking on stuff like "Some leftwing classmates" say.
And what on earth is it supposed to mean that "One-a left wing female admitted he never abused women though"? How does someone else "admit" that another person never did a particular bad thing, unless perhaps they've been attached with a literal five foot rope for the entirety of their lives?
If you want to say you don't care about under-reporting drinking, or you don't care about partisan attacks if you agree with them, or you want more evidence to see someone not confirmed,
fine. I think those are wrong positions but they are at least rational because they are based on things happening and a personal opinion of irrelevance in light of some other goal.
But, acting like this whole thing is a big sham, that she told lies just to *get* Kavanaugh (inexplicably, now, not then, not when he was on D.C. Cir, not other times), that the Dems are conspiring to *get* Kavanaugh (when this didn't happen with Gorsuch), .....that's irrational.
Of course the Dems were going to use it. That doesn't mean she's lying. Yes, it's decades later. That doesn't mean she's lying. Yes, she cannot remember a lot. But according to the experts I always have to read about, the only thing such a victim can really be expected to remember is that what and the who. (And no, I don't like it in criminal trials....but it seems to be what the "experts" say....in every ****ing case).
