Framing Brett Kavanaugh: The Anita Hill Borking Playbook, Revised

By Al Perrotta Published on September 19, 2018

It seems that the question of Brett Kavanaugh’s fitness to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court might come down, in the end, to a “he said/she said.” A bit like the confirmation of Clarence Thomas, so many years ago.

To this day, opinion is sharply divided on partisan lines as to who was telling the truth back then — Clarence Thomas or Anita Hill. Republicans (mostly) believe that Hill was recruited by liberal activists desperate to keep a toxic black conservative off the court. She was coached with a gruesome story (some of it lifted from past court cases), and sent out to slay Judge Thomas. At first her sexual harassment charges were anonymous, launched in the hope of making Thomas withdraw. (A point often forgotten now.)

Democrats (mostly) think Hill was telling the truth and got a raw deal before a sexist Senate. Feminists insist that she had “no reason to lie.” To that conservatives answer: “Well, it pulled her from obscurity and made her a leftist celebrity. And she was trying to wield an enormous amount of power, to veto a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. Those would be reasons to lie or at the very least exaggerate.”

Once again we have a liberal professor accusing a conservative judge. The difference this time is we’re not talking about relatively recent interactions between adult work place colleagues. We’re talking about alleged activities of two teenagers during the days of President Reagan and Porky’s.

We do not know what — if anything — happened 36 years ago. But I do want to pose a hypothetical on what may have happened these past two months. (And yes, it is just a hypothetical.)

How to Frame Brett Kavanaugh

Let’s say you’re a pro-choice donor with very deep pockets. (How deep? Soros deep.) You’re committed to keeping potentially pro-life nominees off the court. (Also pro-2nd Amendment nominees, and Constitutional nominees in general.) And you’re fairly ruthless.

How ruthless? At least as Machiavellian as the FBI officials who took the worthless, partisan Steele Dossier and deceived a FISA court to concoct the “Trump/Russia collusion” narrative. That’s how ruthless. Like Peter Strozk and Lisa Page, you think you’re saving America. And that means taking off the kid gloves at a time like this.

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

The day Brett Kavanaugh’s name hits the shortlist, you start your research. Your team of crack, Ivy-grad researchers start scouring his life. Maybe some “friends” in the FBI or DOJ help you out. (Yesterday, James O’Keefe exposed a DOJ employee who does that very thing for “social justice.”) You go over Kavanaugh’s college and high school associations with a fine tooth comb. And what do you find?

The Narrative’s Already Written. Just Steal and Adapt It.

You find the talented conservative Catholic writer Mark Judge (now a Stream contributor). What do you find out about him? That he struggled with a severe drinking problem in high school — a school he attended along with Brett Kavanaugh. And they were friends. How do you know this? Judge wrote a memoir. As Yahoo News reported:

[Judge] wrote in his memoir two decades ago that he spent some of his high school years “completely annihilated” on alcohol and trying to “hook up” with girls.

Judge, a classmate of Kavanaugh’s at the all-male Georgetown Prep the time of the alleged assault, tells stories in his 1997 memoir, Wasted: Tales of a GenX Drunk, of getting drunk his first time at age 14, binge drinking at teen parties and a struggle with alcoholism.

His “immersion” into alcohol began the end of his sophomore year during a typical annual “beach week,” when Catholic high school students headed to the shore after school was out. “Now I had an opportunity to make some headway [with girls]. Most of the time everyone, including the girls, was drunk. If you could breathe and walk at the same time, you could hook up,” he wrote.

His drinking became so extreme that he had blackout episodes, and woke up on the floor of a restaurant bathroom with no memory of how he got there. Once “I had the first beer, I found it impossible to stop until I was completely annihilated,” he wrote.

Judge’s book changes the name of his high school to “Loyola Prep,” and makes a glancing reference at a character he calls “Bart O’Kavanaugh.”

A girl at a party, wrote Judge, asked him: “Do you know Bart O’Kavanaugh? I heard he puked in someone’s car the other night.” Judge responds: “Yeah he passed out on his way back from a party.”

Now you have the basics of your narrative. At Judge’s school (and Kavanaugh’s), boys went to parties where they got dead drunk along with girls. There the boys tried to “hook up.” Some of the boys had alcoholic blackouts and memory loss. Judge seems to admit that he was one of them.

You Have the Crime. Now Find the Victim.

So you’re going to find someone to accuse Kavanaugh of being one such boy. And you’re going to rope in Mark Judge as a witness/co-defendant. Of course Judge will deny it (since it didn’t happen). But you can prove that he’s an unreliable witness — since he admitted in print to (at least) drunken sexual intentions. Plus he cops to the fact that his memory is unreliable, since he was sometimes blind drunk.

So his denial will do Kavanaugh little good; it might even hurt him. No way Mark Judge will testify, and be torn apart by senators prepped with quotations from his book. Quotations like this one:

I’m guilty as well, at least of the bouts of dehumanizing lust that is part of the fallen world and being human … we all have that monster to some extent.

And of course, this is exactly what has happened. Judge has defended Kavanaugh, but he wisely refuses to testify. You can take Judge’s wrenching, penitent memoir and use it against him, and all those other white male, conservative Catholics whom you despise.

You can even weaponize his illness — severe teenage alcoholism — and use it to save America from Kavanaugh.

There’s just one last piece you need in your little chess game. You need to find a woman to make the complaint.

Finally, you have a competent anti-Kavanaugh lawyer in place, who has been taking money from radical left-wing globalists like you (and George Soros) for years.

The Qualifications for the Next Anita Hill

There’s just one last piece you need in your little chess game. You need to find a woman to make the complaint. But not just anyone. You learned from the Anita Hill debacle. This woman must meet a list of strict preconditions. All of the following must be true of her:

  1. She must have gone to school at one of the places that had social events with Georgetown Prep (a boys school), at the same time Judge and Kavanaugh were attending.
  2. And she must be strongly motivated, a zealous pro-choice liberal who’s just as keen as you to protect “women’s reproductive health care access.” (That is, abortion.) She’ll need to purge her social media, though, to hide her motives as much as possible.
  3. She must have been the victim of sexual assault at some point in high school. That way, if she ever testifies, the pain will be real. (Even if the assailant is wrong.) She must have some record of mentioning it to someone in the past. (If her first outcry about it was in 2012, and that named a different number of assailants, that’s not ideal, but it might just have to do.)

If all these things are true, you’re on your way. You don’t want to get too specific in your charges. No dates, or places, or even specific years. Such things can be checked. If you say, “Brett Kavanaugh assaulted me on this date at this house,” then witnesses could refute it. They could say he wasn’t present. He might have ticket stubs that show he was out of town.

You don’t want to get too specific in your charges. No dates, or places, or even specific years. Such things can be checked. If you say, “Brett Kavanaugh assaulted me on this date at this house,” then witnesses could rebuke it. They could say he wasn’t present. He might have tickets that show he was out of town.

Facts Are Stupid Things

No, best to keep things nice and vague. Don’t even reveal the name of the accuser unless you have to. Paint this as some trauma so appalling that the victim has repressed the specifics which might not hold up. But you do have some details you can use. You take them from Mark Judge’s memoir, and cast him as the fall-guy, along with Kavanaugh. You know that he can’t convince people otherwise, so roping him in does nothing but help your story. It gives it the ring of truth. And indeed some of it was true. There were boys drunkenly pursuing drunk girls at Brett Kavanaugh’s lax Catholic school. How big of a leap is it to believe that he was one of them?

You should wait until the very 11th hour, to launch this attack. That avoids undue scrutiny. Your victim should also set absurd conditions, to avoid testifying. No reason to let the man face his accuser. You want to let suspicion and bitterness do the work that the facts really can’t.

Anyway, to quote O.J. Simpson, that’s how I’d try to frame Brett Kavanaugh. If I did it.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Paul

    Does Vegas offer odds on politics? If so I’d like to wager there will be a second accusation by next week. There’s gotta be another person they can pay..or I mean find by then.

    • Chip Crawford

      I might have taken your bet earlier on. But, they’re having enough trouble with this one – cold feet. With this refusal to face her accuser, even in private session, the tide is turning against Ford. This is all too tricky. They dare not risk another.

      • Steve Pitment

        They will do whatever it takes to coerce or bribe her. They launched a desperate attack. They aren’t about to quit now.

        • Chip Crawford

          The actual point under comment was about bringing in additional persons to make more claims. No one said “they” will quit, but it’s a fact that the claimant is slowing down on showing up to tell her story. Either the bribes you mention aren’t working or this is the plan all along, just to stall the process.

      • Paul

        And the 2nd claim emerges in the news on Sunday night. Gee, what perfect timing to dominate the news cycle first thing Monday morning. Coincidence? No. Orchestrated timing? Yes. Rs walked right into it.

        • Chip Crawford

          My comment stands. They did not risk another. This Ave-NUTTI sharpened his elbows to push in and get in on some of that Soros cash. Hope confusion breaks out in their ranks and they fall on one another. Hey, there’s some good Bible on that happening!

    • Considering the amount of masonic handsigns and his actual freemason membership, I have little doubt he will be confirmed and will toe the line of his dark master.

      • Paul

        Harsh view you have of your fellow Catholic

        • you can’t be Catholic and freemason at the same time, it automatically excommunicates you as freemasons are pure devil worshipers.

          Also, he was involved with the Jesuits, who have a long history with the masons and the cia.

          you might be genuinely more Catholic than he is.

          • Paul

            And yet his priest gives him the eucharist, Catholics can be very confusing

          • The validity of a Priest is in his Holy Orders, not in himself. God consecrated the priest and man (even himself) cannot touch what God has put in place.

            If the judge received unworthily, it is on him. If the priest knows he is unrepentant, then the priest must refuse him.

          • Paul

            At what point does a fellow Catholic get involved if he/she knows a fellow Catholic is receiving unworthily?

          • Only a priest would know that.

          • Hmmm…

            Are you a priest? How can you say that? We can’t know that’s true because you are not a priest. You are consulting with your own ego and giving it permission to be the judge of this matter. Calumny. Blasphemy. You are not indefectible.

          • Chip Crawford

            Great point. Paul references the word on the matter, but we know how our quasi-indefectible friend feels about that. Any use of God’s word that contradicts him is being misused he says. He has given his allegiance to the RCC alone, and he is the premier spokesman for it apparently. Closely hold corp you understand …

      • Cody

        Are you also into freemasonry no wonder your so goofy.

        • No, I am not a devil worshipper.

          • Cody

            Well thats great.

          • As for you? I can see you don’t knowingly worship the devil, but your blasphemous messages so serve him.

          • Cody

            I can tell you worship the pope which is idolatry, which is to bad Jesus hates idolatry, and the pope can’t help you get to heaven. also you are the one committing blasphemous acts against God, by worshipping man and religion, the pope is a sinner just like you, he is not the savior and never will be.

          • Chip Crawford

            Amen and Amen

          • I have no idea what you are talking about.

          • Cody

            You know your teachings are wrong because you have a private email for fear someone like me could present you with the truth, the Bible says they” meaning people like you ” are willingly ignorant.

          • Chesterton had this to say about you:

            “What is any man who has been in the real outer world, for instance, to make of the everlasting cry that Catholic traditions are condemned by the Bible? It indicates a jumble of topsy-turvy tests and tail-foremost arguments, of which I never could at any time see the sense. The ordinary sensible sceptic or pagan is standing in the street (in the supreme character of the man in the street) and he sees a procession go by of the priests of some strange cult, carrying their object of worship under a canopy, some of them wearing high head-dresses and carrying symbolical staffs, others carrying scrolls and sacred records, others carrying sacred images and lighted candles before them, others sacred relics in caskets or cases, and so on. I can understand the spectator saying, “This is all hocus-pocus”; I can even understand him, in moments of irritation, breaking up the procession, throwing down the images, tearing up the scrolls, dancing on the priests and anything else that might express that general view. I can understand his saying, “Your croziers are bosh, your candles are bosh, your statues and scrolls and relics and all the rest of it are bosh.” But in what conceivable frame of mind does he rush in to select one particular scroll of the scriptures of this one particular group (a scroll which had always belonged to them and been a part of their hocus-pocus, if it was hocus-pocus); why in the world should the man in the street say that one particular scroll was not bosh, but was the one and only truth by which all the other things were to be condemned? Why should it not be as superstitious to worship the scrolls as the statues, of that one particular procession? Why should it not be as reasonable to preserve the statues as the scrolls, by the tenets of that particular creed? To say to the priests, “Your statues and scrolls are condemned by our common sense,” is sensible. To say, “Your statues are condemned by your scrolls, and we are going to worship one part of your procession and wreck the rest,” is not sensible from any standpoint, least of all that of the man in the street.”

          • Cody

            I could care less what Chexterton had to say about anything. maybe you should look up the false teachings of the Catholic Church you just might be surprised you are believing most if not all of the false teachings of the unholy mother of harlots church.

          • blasphemy cries to Heaven for vengeance. I know what the Church actually is, you just hope being a bigot will absolve you.

    • Cody

      You are so right. The left will do anything and spend any amount of money to buy a liar to help their cause.

  • Ray

    And all this about sexual matters happens while the mainstream media is silent about the real sexual misconduct that has or might still be going on in high level positions of the liberal left, so when it really does come out, is it going to be seen as an evil baseless attack by the president? Let’s pray for civil rest in the streets. The whole bunch should be held accountable, the DOJ, FBI, News Media, everybody, especially if there is anything but peace and order on the streets when all this comes to light.

  • Ray

    I take this as a baseless attempt to overthrow our justice system, so many people who need to be in prison, could avoid it, as usual. Let these days ahead, be very unusual times.

  • Hmmm…

    The Dems are around actors and the like so much they have gotten ambitious about producing their own play. This offering was a turkey all around – poor lead performance, horrendous writing … It’d be better for them if they closed it post haste.

  • Howard Rosenbaum

    Gosh , whatever happened to that “ Mr Smith Goes To Washington “ screenplay ..?! Remember when Hollywood actually promoted integrity ? Though in those days the “swamp” was just a puddle . Comparatively speaking .
    Sure times have changed . Sure there’s more disingenuous political players for screenwriters to create new scenarios for the big screen.
    Yet it seems improbable that anything more outrageous than what we are “entertained “ with from “Russia collusion “ to deep state espionage against a sitting president & presently to this debacle “the invisible accuser” feature presentation .
    The viewing public may be needing more dramatic offerings to stimulate their sated appetite for political theater of the absurd . I suggest they wait till after the mid terms . When we’re treated to the “behind the scenes” feature presentation.
    You know, when we really control the Senate & keep the House …..

    • Hollywood only cared about integrity when it valued the input of the Church and the index.

  • Patmos

    My favorite thing about this contrived drama: Hillary saying the woman deserves to be listened to.

    • Chip Crawford

      Yeah, Hillary likes make believe and fantasy fiction and symposium speak and all such irrelevant plus she has way too many bad hair days. Ever notice that? And she wonders why more practical type women voted for Trump last time. hahaha

    • centerleftυsa

      That’s right, the same Hillary who on another occasion said “These women are trash, no one will listen to them.”

      She’s selective about the kind of woman that she thinks deserves a hearing.

  • Cody

    Great article.

  • Chip Crawford

    Ford is scared to death of being under oath.
    Judge Kavanaugh is eager to testify.

    Proverbs 28:1 The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion.

  • Andrew Mason

    So long as the Democrats don’t push too hard for scrutiny they can use Ford’s claim as the basis for contending any SCOTUS decisions that don’t go the way they insist they should are only down to an ‘illegitimate president’ stacking the court with ‘illegitimate justices’.

5 Immaterial Gifts With Eternal Value to Give Away This Christmas Season
Rita Dunaway
More from The Stream
Connect with Us