I refused to watch the KaFoxNaugh interview, but heard that he CLAIMS the drinking age was waived for high school seniors in 1982 Maryland...
BIH, where?
You KNOW that's a lie. Perhaps for 18-year-old ACTIVE MILITARY (as is sometimes the case), but CERTAINLY not for privileged high school preppers.
So here we have a sitting judge... lying on national television... ABOUT THE LAW... to cover his underage drinking (100 Kegs or BUST!)... which was, by definition, ILLEGAL (if not widely prosecuted).
I don't hold underage drinking against him. Frankly, I don't hold any other youthful flirtations with intoxicants against him either... But to tell such an easily disprovable lie... In the midst of a whirlwind where CREDIBILITY is the coin of the realm.
WHAT ARE YOU DOING, BRETT?
He's literally got Yale roommates and acquaintances calling him out on his BS... and newsflash, Yale freshmen (who were 18 in 1982) were STILL underage in 1983... and 84.
Is lying about your drinking habits a crime? Nope. But when you're applying for a lifetime position on LITERALLY the most powerful court of the (formerly) most prestigious country in the world, one has to expect that you can comport yourself better than this.
He is a SHAMEFUL liar. The credibility of the accusers is spotless by comparison. At least THEY had the presence of mind to admit the gaps in their narratives and recognize how it might cast doubt.
Brett, on the other hand, seems hell bent on lying his way through the process. He has NOT conducted himself as a person of integrity. His lies before the Senate in 2006, and his lies to the committee AND the national press during this confirmation are pathetic and disgusting.
C'mon, Thursday. (and we need receipts, Avenatti...)
Comments