Pierce: You Can't Walk Back a Categorical Denial
You Can't Walk Back a Categorical Denial
The Brett Kavanaugh hearings were already weird. Now they're about to get very rough.
BY CHARLES P. PIERCE
SEP 17, 2018
The Categorical Denial is a two-edged sword, which is why politicians and those nominated for seats on the Supreme Court avoid the Categorical Denial as though it were a subpoena from Vlad The Impaler. For example, one Doesn't Recall. One can Not Recall from hell to breakfast and the people who are opposing you can pound sand. One can Not Respond To Hypotheticals. One can Not Comment On Cases That Might Come Before The Court. All of these are perfectly legitimate Beltway strategies by which one can avoid the glistening blade of the Categorical Denial....
But the Categorical Denial is a different level of threat. I am not a crook. We did not trade arms for hostages. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. These are Categorical Denials. They also are lies. They did nothing except give the politicians who uttered them endless grief, and those three men were presidents of the United States.
Throughout his hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Brett Kavanaugh, the president*'s choice for a lifetime gig on there Supreme Court, managed to dodge the Categorical Denial. He was not as slick at it as was Neil Gorsuch. He stammered and blathered and came off like someone who hadn't learned his lines very well. He was plainly wrongfooted by Senator Pat Leahy on the subject of Democratic committee e-mails that had been hacked while Kavanaugh worked at the White House. He managed to keep up the pretense, but you could see all the gears and flywheels working just below the surface.
He was an unconvincing performer giving an unconvincing performance. But he had (barely) sufficient political support, and he (barely) had the votes, so he looked like he was going to slide. But there was a certain stirring in the underbrush that gave his hearings a kind of spooky counter-melody. The massive credit card debt suddenly paid off. The 300-large worth of baseball tickets. The strange questions from Senator Sheldon Whitehouse about gambling. And a line of inquiry from Senator Maizie Hirono that seemed to come from even deeper left-field:
“No."
Here's the thing about Categorical Denials. They push all your chips to the center of the table. If you're mistaken, or you've forgotten, or you did it but you were too sockless hammered to recall the events, you're just as done as if you were flat-out lying about the whole matter. Certainly, if you're trying to be a Supreme Court justice, you better hope there isn't evidence out there that you've somehow misplaced in your memory, because peddling untruths in public, and before the Senate, and under oath, is a guaranteed way back to your old job. So, if the woman in question steps up, bravely, and describes in detail what she remembers about the night in question, you can suddenly realize that there isn't quite as much limb under your feet as you thought there was.
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a23278660/brett-kavanaugh-rape-allegation/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Brava! 
Brava! 
“No."
She had/has his number.
has been asking this question of every nominee for every position since #Metoo became a thing.
mcar.
Thank You!
