#3 Kavanaugh told provable lies re Ford’s assault allegation

[wpseo_breadcrumb]

By George H Butcher III

Table of Contents for this Blog Post #3

Kavanaugh’s false testimony about Ford’s allegation showed consciousness of guilt and was a confession of his guilt in September 2018

Brett Kavanaugh had Christine Blasey Ford’s written statement in advance, and she also testified first. So, he was aware during his testimony that Dr. Ford’s description of the event where she was sexually assaulted bore many similarities to the description in his calendar of a July 1, 1982 house-party. Not later than September 16, 2018, he had the same information based on details of her story that were public.

How did we get to this point?

This is Blog #3 in my series of blog posts about the Kavanaugh confirmation proceedings. Blog #1 explained that three independent proofs of Justice Kavanaugh’s guilt of sexually assaulting Dr. Ford follow from the fact that Dr. Ford attended the July 1, 1982 event. Justice Kavanaugh repeatedly denied that she was there.

Two of those proofs of his guilt are confessions of his guilt through his actions. The first such confession occurred in July 1982, contemporaneously with the sexual assault. His 1982 confession is described in Blog #4.

His second confession occurred in September 2018, through his actions if giving false testimony about Dr. Ford’s allegation. That confession is also the second proof of his guilt. His 2018 confession is explained in this blog post.

Kavanaugh knew the similarities between Dr. Ford’s memories and his description showed she was there

As discussed in Blog #2, there are seven respects in which his and her descriptions are aligned. In three of those respects, Justice Kavanaugh’s calendar provided additional information consistent with Dr. Ford’s memories:

• She said the summer of 1982, and he identified the exact date – July 1, 1982.
• She said a suburban house in Montgomery County, with a narrow stairway leading to the second floor, and he identified Timmy’s house, which is in Rockville, Montgomery County.
• He identified Timmy, Tom, Bernie, and Squi as having been present, in addition to the three boys she named. She had said at least one unnamed boy attended the house-party, in addition to the three she identified by name.

None of those additional details provided a rationale for Justice Kavanaugh to claim the July 1, 1982 house-party was not the event described by Dr. Ford. The only material differences between his calendar entry and her description were Dr. Ford’s statements that she and Leland Keyser were at the house-party.

It might be conceivable, albeit highly unlikely, that Justice Kavanaugh had no direct recollection of Dr. Ford being at the July 1, 1982, house-party. But he had to know using common sense that she could not have known the seven details she recalled without having been present. Truthful testimony by Justice Kavanaugh would have reflected that conclusion.

Justice Kavanaugh had no rationale to conclude or assume D. Ford wasn’t there

Even if Justice Kavanaugh had suspended common sense, the possibility that Dr. Ford might have been present on July 1 was unavoidable. Importantly, there are two independent bases for Justice Kavanaugh to have realized that Dr. Ford attended the July 1, 1982 house party. The first is her knowledge of the same details that he described in his calendar, for which there is no explanation except that she was present. The second is her testimony that she attended the event she described. He was aware of both bases.

Her testimony that she was present at the event she described is independently corroborated by the otherwise inexplicable similarities between their descriptions. Justice Kavanaugh’s calendars show that only the July 1, 1982 house-party could have been the event she described. Since neither Justice Kavanaugh nor the other attendees admitted to recalling the house-party, he had no legitimate basis to either conclude or assume that Dr. Ford wasn’t there.

He told two categories of lies to obscure the evidence of his guilt

Two types of false or deceitful statements made by Justice Kavanaugh in his testimony are cataloged below. The first category is false or deceitful statements about the evidence – such as mischaracterizations of statements made by other witnesses. The second category is false or deceitful statements he made about whether the event described by Dr. Ford, at which she alleged he sexually assaulted her, ever occurred.

Let’s be clear. The second category is not about whether the assault took place, but about whether the event Dr. Ford described took place. By claiming the event she described didn’t even occur, Justice Kavanaugh was inherently claiming that she imagined the event and the sexual assault. So, he was claiming that Dr. Ford is delusional.

This analysis looks at the evidence concerning his truthfulness, without considering the proof of his guilt

The analysis in this blog post does not take account of or use Justice Kavanaugh’s 1982 confession by the omission of Dr. Ford from his calendar entry. Taking account of independent evidence that he sexually assaulted Dr. Ford would mean that 100% of his statements about her allegation were lies.

So, his 1982 confession isn’t used herein either to conclude that he must have recalled the July 1, 1982 house-party, or to conclude he is not credible and to disbelieve his claims on that basis. Those inferences will be reflected in a subsequent blog post.

The analysis in this blog post also doesn’t take account of the virtual certainty that Justice Kavanaugh and Mr. Judge were in the bedroom with Dr. Ford, and sexually assaulted her, as a basis for concluding that he gave knowingly false testimony. Once again, the implications of that evidence are that 100% of his testimony about her allegation was false. Those implications will also be reflected in a subsequent blog post.

Ignoring the evidence of his guilt is important in evaluating the actions of the Republicans and the press

You might ask, “Why is it worthwhile to examine his testimony without taking account of two independent bases for knowing that everything he said was a lie?” The importance of this examination of his testimony goes beyond the conclusion that Justice Kavanaugh’s lies were knowing, willful, and pervasive.

The greater import of this analysis concerns the two questions, what were the Republicans aware of and when did they know it. That crucial concern relates both to what they had to know about his guilt and what they had to know about his visibly false testimony.

The inquiry is specifically relevant concerning Senator Collins. She explicitly or implicitly made many of the same arguments that were advanced by Justice Kavanaugh. Whether those arguments were facially reasonable or visibly false is relevant to her culpability.

Those two questions also need to be asked concerning the news media. Does the reporting on the Kavanaugh proceedings in the mainstream media reflect what was evident from watching his testimony? The crucial concern again relates to what the press knew, both about his guilt and his visibly false testimony, and when they knew it. 

Many news commentators have observed that Justice Kavanaugh gave false testimony in multiple respects on September 27, 2018. Importantly, the false and deceitful testimony that we are reviewing related directly to Dr. Ford’s sexual-assault allegation.

Important context for analyzing Justice Kavanaugh’s testimony

In analyzing each statement below, important context is that Dr. Ford provably attended the July 1, 1982 house-party. Also, it is the event at which she alleges that Justice Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her. All of Dr. Ford’s recollections about the event details are corroborated by his calendar, except whether Ms. Keyser was present.

Additional context is that the memories of all the boys who were present at the July 1, 1982 event are provably unreliable or dishonest. They all claim to have no recollection of the July 1 house-party, which Justice Kavanaugh’s calendar shows they attended.

Justice Kavanaugh’s false and deceitful testimony about the evidence

In his confirmation hearing testimony, Justice Kavanaugh made the following false or deceitful statements about the evidence. The function of each statement was to create an inaccurate impression that there was evidence indicating Dr. Ford did not attend the July 1, 1982 house-party. But there was no such evidence.

He intended to undermine the credibility of Dr. Ford’s statement that she was at a summer of 1982 house-party with him and Mr. Judge, which he knew to be accurate. His goal was to mislead senators and the public about the credibility of her accusation that he sexually assaulted her.

Justice Kavanaugh repeatedly made similar statements of this type, making an analysis of them necessarily repetitive. But each one represents a separate potential crime by Justice Kavanaugh. So, it is crucial to analyze each of them to understand and catalog his misconduct. The underlined passages highlight false statements.

No one recalls the event, not even her longtime friend

• “All four people allegedly at the event, including Dr. Ford’s longtime friend, Ms. Keyser, have said they recall no such event.” – Literally true, but irrelevant and purposefully deceptive.
  • Virtually all of Dr. Ford’s recollections are corroborated. She was provably present on July 1, 1982.
  • The recollections of Smyth, Judge, and Kavanaugh are provably unreliable or dishonest. So, their non-recollection claims are evidence of nothing.
  • Ms. Keyser’s non-recollection claim is also evidence of nothing. It was only potentially significant to the argument that the event Dr. Ford described never occurred. But the event provably occurred, and Dr. Ford was provably there. So, whether or not Ms. Keyser recalled or attended the July 1, 1982 house-party is immaterial, except as a distraction.

No corroboration and refuted by the witnesses she identified

• “[As] we sit here today, some 36 years after the alleged event occurred when there is no corroboration and indeed it is refuted by the people allegedly there.” – Knowingly false and purposefully deceptive.
  • Virtually all of Dr. Ford’s recollections are corroborated. She was provably present on July 1, 1982.
  • None of the witnesses refuted that she was at the July 1, 1982 house-party.
  • The memories of the seven males who were at the house-party are unreliable or dishonest.
  • Whether Ms. Keyser recalled or attended the event is immaterial.
  • Mr. Judge only made a general denial without even admitting to recalling the July 1, 1982 house-party or the incident in the second-floor bedroom that Dr. Ford described. Also, he did not testify. So, he should be viewed as a co-defendant, whose denial is not additive to Justice Kavanaugh’s.  

Not only uncorroborated but refuted by her witnesses. Refuted

• “Dr. Ford’s allegation is not merely uncorroborated, it is refuted by the very people she says were there, including by a long-time friend of hers. Refuted.” – Knowingly false and purposefully deceptive.
  • Virtually all of Dr. Ford’s recollections are corroborated. She was provably present on July 1, 1982.
  • None of the witnesses refuted that she was at the July 1, 1982 house-party.
  • The memories of the seven males who were at the house-party are unreliable or dishonest.
  • Whether Ms. Keyser recalled or attended the event is immaterial. She didn’t refute Dr. Ford’s recollection of the July 1, 1982 house-party. She claimed to have no memory.
  • Mr. Judge’s denial is not additive to Justice Kavanaugh’s.

If a mere allegation could destroy  a person’s life and career

• “But if the mere allegation – the mere assertion of an allegation – a refuted allegation from 36 years ago is enough to destroy a person’s life and career, we will have abandoned the basic principles of fairness and due process that define our legal system and our country. – Knowingly false and purposefully deceptive.
  • There was evidence provided by Dr. Ford’s testimony that Justice Kavanaugh is guilty of sexual assault. That is not a mere allegation, and her testimony was credible, even viewed in isolation.
  • Virtually all of Dr. Ford’s recollections are corroborated. She was provably present on July 1, 1982.
  • None of the witnesses refuted that she was at the July 1, 1982 house-party.
  • The memories of the seven males who were at the house-party are unreliable or dishonest.
  • Whether Ms. Keyser recalled or attended the event is immaterial.
  • Mr. Judge’s denial is not additive to Justice Kavanaugh’s.

The location she identified can’t be right

• “In her letter to Senator Feinstein, she said that there were four other people at the house, but none of those people, nor I, lived near Columbia Country Club.” – Purposefully deceptive
  • Justice Kavanaugh knew the event Dr. Ford described was the July 1, 1982 house-party. And he knew the party took place at Timmy’s house because that is stated in his July 1, 1982 calendar entry. That location is consistent with Dr. Ford’s description.

Justice Kavanaugh’s false and deceitful statements that there was no event like the one Dr. Ford described

In his confirmation hearing testimony, Justice Kavanaugh made the following knowingly false or purposefully deceitful statements. The theme of these statements concerns whether the house-party where Dr. Ford testified that he sexually assaulted her even occurred.

The defense theory is that if the event itself didn’t even happen, then Dr. Ford was not sexually assaulted by Justice Kavanaugh. So, she must have imagined the sexual assault or confused the perpetrator.

Justice Kavanaugh’s intention was to undermine the credibility of Dr. Ford’s statement that she was at a house party with him and Mr. Judge, which he knew to be accurate. His objective was to mislead senators and the public about the credibility of her accusation that he sexually assaulted her.

Justice Kavanaugh made six statements of this type. So, the discussion of them is a bit repetitive. But each one represents a separate potential crime by Justice Kavanaugh. So, it is essential to analyze each of them to understand and catalog his misconduct. The underlined passages highlight false statements.

I was not at the party she described

• “I was not at the party described by Dr. Ford.” – Knowingly false and purposefully deceitful. He was at the July 1, 1982 house-party, which was the event described by Dr. Ford that she attended, and at which she was sexually assaulted.
  • The quoted testimony was in his opening statement and preceded any discussion of his July 1, 1982 calendar entry. So, it wasn’t apparent in real-time that his statement was blatantly false.
  • The relevant question, which he pretended to be addressing, was whether he was present at the event where Dr. Ford claimed that he assaulted her. That is the party she “described.” The answer is a definite, “Yes.” But he unequivocally testified, “No.” There was one and only one such house-party, and he was present.
  • He knew that his calendar was inaccurate since it did not reflect Dr. Ford’s provable presence on July 1, 1982. So, he couldn’t stand on the formality that Ms. Keyser wasn’t listed in his calendar entry to claim that he wasn’t at the event described by Dr. Ford.
  • Whether Ms. Keyser was there or not was immaterial to the point of the question that he pretended to be addressing. Regardless of whether Ms. Keyser was at the July 1 house-party, Dr. Ford, Mr. Judge, and Justice Kavanaugh were all present.

I never attended a gathering like that

• “I never had any sexual or physical encounter of any kind with Dr. Ford. I never attended a gathering like the one Dr. Ford describes in her allegation.” – Knowingly false and purposefully misleading. He was at the July 1, 1982 event. That is the house-party Dr. Ford described at which she alleges that he sexually assaulted her.
  • The quoted testimony preceded any discussion of his July 1, 1982 calendar entry. So, it wasn’t apparent in real-time that his statement was blatantly false.
  • The statement is about the gathering itself. “Like” doesn’t mean precisely the same in every minute particular, but substantively the same as or similar to.
  • The relevant question was whether he was present at the gathering where Dr. Ford claimed that he sexually assaulted her. The answer is a definite “Yes.” The only relevant details are whether he, Mr. Judge, and Dr. Ford were present, which he knew to be true.

I don’t recall ever meeting her

• “She and I did not travel in the same social circles. It is possible that we met at some point at some events, although I do not recall that. – Purposefully deceptive and virtually certain to be false.
  • The quoted testimony preceded any discussion of his July 1, 1982 calendar entry. So, it wasn’t apparent in real-time that his statement was blatantly false.
  • Even ignoring both his 1982 confession and the proof of his guilt based on Dr. Ford’s presence at the house-party, it is barely conceivable, and not at all credible, that he didn’t “recall” having met Dr. Ford at the July 1, 1982 house-party.
  • Dr. Ford was either the only girl or one of two girls at a party with seven older boys. In either case, is it not believable that he doesn’t recall the event based on the demographics of the attendees.
  • He also knew Dr. Ford had attended the July 1, 1982 house-party, based on the similarities between their descriptions. At a minimum (even ignoring the other evidence of his guilt), his answer that he didn’t “recall” having met her was purposefully deceptive since he knew he had met her at the July 1 event.

None of my gatherings included her people

• “The calendars show a few weekday gatherings at friends’ houses after a workout or just to meet up and have some beers. But none of those gatherings included the group of people that Dr. Ford has identified. And as my calendars show, I was very precise about listing who was there; very precise… my calendars also were diaries of sorts, forward-looking and backward-looking… I listed the precise people who had shown up for certain events.” – Knowingly false and purposefully deceptive.
  • The quoted testimony preceded any discussion of his July 1, 1982 calendar entry. So, it wasn’t apparent in real-time that his statement was blatantly false.
  • His testimony was about who was at the gathering, not about his calendar entry. But he went to pains to suggest that his calendar entries that listed people who attended events were complete.
  • He knew that the July 1, 1982, gathering included everyone Dr. Ford described as having been present, with the possible exception of Ms. Keyser. But Ms. Keyser’s presence was immaterial. And he had no basis for assuming or concluding that Ms. Keyser wasn’t present.

Never at a gathering that fit her description

• Justice Kavanaugh unequivocally responded “No” to the following question by Rachel Mitchell: “Dr. Ford described a small gathering of people at a suburban Maryland home in the summer of 1982. She said that Mark Judge, P.J. Smyth and Leland Ingham also were present, as well as an unknown male, and that the people were drinking to varying degrees. Were you ever at a gathering that fits that description?” – Knowingly false and purposefully deceptive. The July 1, 1982, the house-party fits Dr. Ford’s description.
  • This question preceded the discussion of the July 1, 1982 house-party. So, it wasn’t apparent in real-time that his statement was blatantly false.
  • The question was about the gathering described by Dr. Ford, not about his calendar.
  • Since Justice Kavanaugh, Mr. Judge, and Dr. Ford were present on July 1, 1982, the gathering fits her description of the event where she was sexually assaulted.
  • Whether Ms. Keyser was present or not is irrelevant, and he had no basis for concluding or assuming that she wasn’t there.

Nothing in my calendar that could even remotely fit what we’re talking about

• Justice Kavanaugh also unequivocally responded “No” in the following exchange with Ms. Mitchell. “MITCHELL: Have you reviewed every entry that is in these calendars of May, June, July and August of 1982? KAVANAUGH: I have. MITCHELL: Is there anything that could even remotely fit what we’re talking about, in terms of Dr. Ford’s allegations? KAVANAUGH: No.” – Knowingly false.
  • This question and answer followed a discussion of his July 1 calendar entry. It was apparent from his testimony that the July 1 entry related to a summer of 1982 event at Timmy’s house, which was attended by Kavanaugh, Judge, Smyth, and additional boys, and that they were drinking beer.
  • So, it was evident that six details of his July 1 calendar entry aligned with Dr. Ford’s description, even without knowing that Timmy’s house was a two-story suburban house in Montgomery County, which Justice Kavanaugh knew.
  • Justice Kavanaugh was aware that his July 1 calendar entry aligned with seven of the nine details that Dr. Ford recalled. So, that entry more than remotely fit her description.
  • Justice Kavanaugh’s “No” answer would have been knowingly false, even if that were the extent of the relevance of his calendar entry to Dr. Ford’s allegations.
  • For Justice Kavanaugh to truthfully state that the July 1, 1982 house-party “could [not] even remotely fit” the event described by Dr. Ford, would have required that he be sure the two events were not substantially the same. That would have required that he be certain Dr. Ford did not attend the house-party.
  • He couldn’t have had such certainty she wasn’t there because he and the other witnesses all claimed to have no recollection of the house-party. Plus, she was provably present.
  • Even if Justice Kavanaugh could have been certain Ms. Keyser wasn’t at the event, that would not have been sufficient to justify his “No” answer, as long as it remained possible that Dr. Ford attended the July 1 house-party.
  • However, he couldn’t even have eliminated the possibility that Ms. Keyser was at the July 1 house-party.  Ms. Keyser’s non-recollection and the non-recollections of those listed in his calendar entry are easily outweighed by Dr. Ford’s affirmative testimony that Ms. Keyser was present.

Kavanaugh’s last answer above was so obviously false that it couldn’t have been missed without effort

After the last answer, every senator, Trump administration official, and news media analyst should have been aware that Justice Kavanaugh just told a blatant lie that should have been treated as an indication of guilt. And that’s before even taking account of the evidence that proves Dr. Ford was present at the July 1 house-party.

However, Justice Kavanaugh also knew that Dr. Ford was at the July 1, 1982 house-party despite not being listed in his calendar.  Either (i) he had a direct memory of the event or (ii) he recognized that she could only have known the specifics she described of the event by having been present or both.

Even stretching credulity, Justice Kavanaugh had to know that Dr. Ford was likely at the July 1, 1982 event, based solely on the similarities between their descriptions. And Dr. Ford also testified that she attended the event she described, at which she was sexually assaulted.

Justice Kavanaugh could only have answered “No” to Ms. Mitchell’s question if there were no possibility that Dr. Ford was at the July 1 house-party. So, his answer was a blatant lie.

Every senator, Trump administration official, and news media analyst should have recognized the blatant lie (since Dr. Ford was provably at the July 1 house-party, relying only on common sense). But it would still have been a lie if it were merely possible that Dr. Ford might have been present on July 1, 1982.

Justice Kavanaugh’s lies about Dr. Ford’s allegation are a 2018 confession of his guilt and are also independently disqualifying

Justice Kavanaugh’s lies about whether the event described by Dr. Ford occurred are central, rather than peripheral. Those falsehoods and deceptions in his testimony manifest consciousness of guilt and represent an admission of guilt on September 27, 2018.

The only reason for him to lie about Dr. Ford having attended the July 1, 1982 house-party is that he did sexually assault her. He remembers the July 1 event. So, if he had a different recollection from hers, he would have brought it forward.  

To reach those conclusions, I’m only considering his lies and deceptions that should have been readily apparent to observers in real-time, as described above. By real-time, I mean during his testimony but following the discussion about his calendar and his July 1, 1982 calendar entry.

Even from that narrow perspective, his lies were pervasive. However, when the other proofs of his guilt are also considered, it becomes apparent that his dishonesty is ubiquitous. Justice Kavanaugh may have been aiming for cleverly deceptive, but what he achieved was knowingly false and comprehensively deceitful.

Taking his provable guilt into account, all of his responses to questions about Dr. Ford’s allegation were knowingly false. His readily apparently lies should have been disqualifying for him to be confirmed. His lies that are now demonstrable should disqualify him from continuing to sit on the Supreme Court.

The media inexplicably failed to report on Justice Kavanaugh’s blatantly false testimony and its implications

The fact of and the significance of Justice Kavanaugh’s lies about the house-party should have been readily apparent to sophisticated observers. Even if that recognition were not immediate for a particular individual, it should have substantially preceded the confirmation vote on October 6, 2018.

There isn’t even an argument that Justice Kavanaugh’s last response listed above was not knowingly false. That Justice Kavanaugh gave knowingly false testimony to undermine Dr. Ford’s sexual-assault allegation isn’t a matter of opinion, that needs to be danced around. It is a fact that was easily discernible based on plainly visible direct and circumstantial evidence. His lie was recognizable in real-time in watching the confirmation hearing.

Justice Kavanaugh’s inarguable lies should have been reported as fact

Justice Kavanaugh’s lie, and its significance as an admission of his guilt, should have been reported on the front pages of newspapers across the country the next day, and again on subsequent days. But that did not happen. I will thoroughly discuss the implications of the inadequate press coverage of the Kavanaugh confirmation proceedings in blog post #12 of this series.

There was a significant amount of coverage, presented as commentary, about multiple respects in which Justice Kavanaugh appeared to have lied during his testimony about matters not directly related to Dr. Ford’s allegation. Examples are his statements about his drinking and his high-school yearbook.

But the lies cataloged herein relate directly to Dr. Ford’s sexual-assault allegation. Moreover, they include critical lies concerning her allegation that should be reported as fact, rather than as commentary or opinion.

Dr. Ford’s presence at the July 1, 1982 house-party should have been reported as fact

The evidence that Dr. Ford was present at the July 1, 1982 house-party is the equivalent of dispositive video evidence. Justice Kavanaugh was admittedly at the house-party but repeatedly denied under oath that she was there.

The inference should have been that he lied about Dr. Ford’s presence at the house-party because he is guilty of sexually assaulting her. But his false testimony about her allegation is disqualifying by itself, even without the inference that he’s guilty. The media reporting should have reflected both stories in that manner.

The House Judiciary Committee should investigate Justice Kavanaugh

Without exception, Justice Kavanaugh intended the statements detailed above to deceive senators and the public about the truthfulness of Dr. Ford’s sexual assault allegations. His mechanism for achieving that objective was to create sham disputes about an aspect of her testimony that he knew to be true.

In essence, Justice Kavanaugh treated Dr. Ford’s sexual-assault allegation like a joke, about which he could play the prankster. His pranks were to give intentionally false answers that he planned to argue, if needed, are technically correct in some irrelevant respect.

Justice Kavanaugh made a mockery of the confirmation process. And in doing so, he made a mockery of the role of a Supreme Court justice.

The evidence of Justice Kavanaugh’s guilt of the sexual assault and of giving false testimony is overwhelming

There are three independent proofs of his guilt that flow from the certainty that Dr. Ford was present on July 1, 1982. But even if it were not the case that Dr. Ford’s sexual-assault allegation is provably true, Justice Kavanaugh’s pervasive dishonesty in responding to her sexual-assault allegation should be disqualifying for him to sit on the Supreme Court.

It is not a mitigating circumstance that he had Senate Republicans, the President, the Vice-President, and other Trump administration officials as accomplices. However, Justice Kavanaugh could not rationally have engaged in such flagrantly corrupt conduct if he hadn’t known in advance that the Senate Republicans were his accomplices.  He must have known they would not make any effort to perform their responsibilities as senators honestly. And, Justice Kavanaugh is very rational.

At a minimum, Justice Kavanaugh should give public testimony before the House Judiciary Committee

At a minimum, Justice Kavanaugh should testify before the House Judiciary Committee about Dr. Ford’s allegations. He should give his testimony in a public setting that requires him to provide responsive, honest, and comprehensive answers to the questions cited above to which he repeatedly gave false and deceptive answers during his Senate Judiciary Committee testimony on September 27, 2018. That investigative process should occur without regard to whether there are sufficient votes in advance to impeach or to convict him.  

Looking forward

My next blog will examine Justice Kavanaugh’s 1982 confession by the omission of Dr. Ford from his July 1, 1982 calendar entry. I will also review the similar underlying strategies of the conduct that constitutes his 1982 confession and his 2018 confession by giving false testimony.