Kavanaugh's Calendar Key to FBI Probe

So the Dumb-ocrats got what they asked for, a new FBI investigation into allegations the teenage Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted 15-year-old Christine Blasey (Ford) back in the summer of 1982. The Feds also will look into two other allegations of sexual misconduct alleged to have occurred during his high school and Yale undergraduate days.

Unlike the professional background checks the FBI performed six times on Kavanaugh for his successive federal jobs, the new investigation will focus on his behavior before he earned his education degrees. Here’s how The New York Times described the scope of the inquiry: https://nyti.ms/2OXnzrE

Of particular interest might well be the calendars Kavanaugh innocently enough submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee as evidence he could not have sexually assaulted Blasey Ford. While Democratic senators tried to decipher some of his obscure (to them) notations, they missed an opportunity to reveal to the nation the extent to which Kavanaugh was a party boy and not the wholesome football and basketball varsity jock and top student he projected during Thursday’s hearing. 

Kavanaugh acknowledged his love of beer, an infatuation with the brew he said he maintains to this day. But several times he either misled or provided incomplete responses to inquiries about his calendar entries.

He claimed he legally drank beer during his senior high school year, when he was 18. But Maryland had raised the legal drinking age to 21. None of the Dumb-ocrats seemed aware of this discrepancy. 

For a more detailed explanation of his calendar’s cryptic meanings, including keys to “Renate Alumnius,” “Devil’s Triangle,” “boofing,” and “Beach Week,” read Vox from September 26, the day before the committee hearing (apparently the Dumb-ocrats and their staffs did not): https://www.vox.com/2018/9/26/17901368/kavanaugh-yearbook-boof-devil-triangle-renate-beach-week.

No doubt, the anguish on the faces of Kavanaugh’s family reflected the pain and trauma they have gone through over the past two weeks. But I also wonder if some of the horror evidenced on their faces came from the revelation that their all-American boy and husband was not the straight shooter he portended to be in his youth. Did his parents know he routinely got drunk? As both his parents were lawyers, they should have been aware the legal drinking age had been raised to 21. Aware now of how frequently he abused alcohol, could a seed of doubt be festering within their devotion to their son?  

So we await an FBI report likely to corroborate Kavanaugh swallowed prodigious amounts of beer back then, but likely to fail to pinpoint any fact to corroborate Blasey Ford’s testimony. 

It will be her word versus his. Her memory seared into the hippocampus part of the brain versus his beer-saturated recall aided by calendar entries he is reluctant, probably embarrassed, to fully explain. 

And on this division, the fate of Kavanaugh’s seat on the Supreme Court and with it the future of our country, hang in the balance. 

Dumb-ocrats Miss Revealing Kavanaugh's Inner Man

From police procedurals in film and TV, to real life criminal cases, we have seen how law enforcement can secure convictions by planting evidence. What we saw Thursday during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh committed a sexual assault as a teenager was an official decision to withhold testimony that could corroborate or refute the charge against a member of the white male establishment. By refusing to subpoena Mark Judge, an alleged eyewitness to the assault, and other witnesses, such as the administrator of the polygraph test taken by Christine Blasey Ford, the all male Republican majority on the committee ensured that justice would be blind as well as deaf and dumb. 

On Friday a semblance of fair play returned to the committee. Though a party line vote sent Kavanaugh’s nomination to the full Senate for consideration, Arizona senator Jeff Flake said his aye vote would be contingent on the FBI doing an investigation of the charge, a request Democrats continually made Thursday. 

Mark Judge’s cooperation is not assured. Late Friday afternoon the president ordered a supplemental FBI probe to be completed within a week.

Meanwhile, what the divided nation is left to debate are the performances of Kavanaugh and Blasey Ford. Righteous indignation, even contempt, by the accused; anguish and trauma reluctantly displayed by the accuser. 

They were the star performers. But the senators also provided fascinating but not uplifting displays of statesmanship. Both sides grandstanded, though none as over the top as Republican Lindsey Graham. 

I’m most disappointed with the Democrats, or as I think we should henceforth call them, the Dumb-ocrats. With the whole world watching they allowed Kavanaugh to bulldoze them, to fire up his base while they failed to dig deeply into his psyche. 

The Dumb-ocrats kept asking him to call for an FBI investigation. The Dumb-ocrats kept asking if he was an excessive drinker, prone to blackouts. They kept asking if he sexulally assaulted women. Did they really think he’d surrender an “aha” moment and admit to being imperfect? 

Dumb-ocrats, rather, should have gently probed his character, his judicial reasoning, his family values. By exposing them they would have made it clear to any who had not already committed to his confirmation that Brett Kavanaugh was not the all-American judge, father and coach he tries to put across.

If the questions the Dumb-ocrats posed were insufficient, what should they have asked? I provided some in my last blog (http://nosocksneededanymore.blogspot.com/2018/09/nine-hours-of-she-said-he-said-leave.html), but a wider range of questions were submitted by New York Times readers from across the country (https://nyti.ms/2NNvgE7).

I liked the one from Lynda of Gulfport, FL: “Which actions in your life do you now regret taking but have learned from and have made you a better husband, father, teacher and judge? Have any of the mentors in your career been men you admired professionally, but that you had private concerns about with regard to their attitudes toward women in your workplace? As a father to two daughters, did you ever feel any responsibility to express a concern about the language used to describe women in any of your workplaces?”

I read somewhere the following question: Would you permit your daughters, when they are 15, to go to the type of parties you attended in high school? 

Answers to these questions were insight opportunities lost because of Dumb-ocratic obsession with trying to reveal a smoking gun. As the Trumpster would say, Sad.