Fuzzy Details vs Specific Denial
In contrast to Ford’s vague memory and confusing details, Kavanaugh issued a very specific denial. He “categorically and unequivocally ” denied Ford’s allegations at that time or any time. He claims he attended no such party.
Kavanaugh’s specific denial puts him at huge risk if any portion of it was true. Indeed, he is even at huge risk of a lie: someone who claims to have been at the party but wasn’t.
Smyth also offered a detailed and specific denial: “ I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh .”
The only fuzzy denial was that of Mark Judge: “ It’s just absolutely nuts. I never saw Brett act that way. ”
Of the three men, Judge was the only person who failed to deny being at such parties.
Add It Up
Add it all up and it is overwhelmingly likely that Kavanaugh is totally innocent. From the outset, he made very specific denials as did Smyth more recently.
If he was at that party (assuming there was a party), he ran a serious risk of being refuted by someone else who was there. He also ran the risk of being outed in a purposeful lie by someone not at the party, but simply out to get him.
There is a miniscule chance that Kavanaugh was prepared. But Clinton, unlike Kavanaugh (knew there was only one other person in the room). Clinton mistakenly presumed she would not yap.
It’s hard to believe Kavanaugh would have made that kind of mistake.
www.lewrockwell.com
