Charles Ludington, a college friend of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, released a statement that directly contradicted the testimony of the judge on this drinking in college. Ludington told The Washington Post that he gave a statement to the FBI that Kavanaugh was “belligerent and aggressive” as a drunk in college and once threw a beer in the face of someone who insulted him. He is the third college friend who described Kavanaugh as a belligerent drinker in college.
Ludington is an associate professor at North Carolina State University and stated that “When Brett got drunk, he was often belligerent and aggressive. On one of the last occasions I purposely socialized with Brett, I witnessed him respond to a semi-hostile remark, not by defusing the situation, but by throwing his beer in the man’s face and starting a fight that ended with one of our mutual friends in jail.”
Former classmates Lynne Brookes and Elizabeth Swisher have also given accounts similar to Ludington’s statement.
Ludington has taught at North Carolina State University since 2004 and, according to his bio on the university’s website, Ludington specializes in northern European history. He has also taught at the Marie Curie Senior Research Fellow at University College Cork and the Universite de Bordeaux-Michel Montaigne in France.
Ludington earned a bachelor’s degree in history from Yale in 1987 and a Doctor of Philosophy and History in 2003 from Columbia University.
He also played basketball for Yale and briefly played professionally in Europe in Paris and Spain. He has published two books: The Politics of Wine in Britain: A New Cultural History (2013) and A Long Shadow: The Story of an Ulster-Irish Family (2016).
The drinking question could be deemed relevant in two ways. It could taken as reaffirming the description of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. It could also be taken as evidence of perjury by Kavanaugh who denied such excessive drinking. The latter raises a tough question on the use of such an issue as drinking in college should be determinative in a Supreme Court confirmation. Clearly perjury is perjury but these are matters of opinions on how Kavanaugh acted as a college student when drunk.
What do you think?
Temporary amnesia due to thiamine deficiency caused by excessive consumption of alcohol ought to be an affirmative defense for perjury on statements pertaining to events that occurred during the bout of temporary amnesia. However, there’s some evidence that Kavanaugh may have developed the habit of relying upon trusted friends to inform him of his conduct after the fact on those occasions when he had had no memory of his own upon which to draw. For the sake of argument, let’s call that “hearsay memory.” I’m not sure whether such “hearsay memory” could be used to prove that Kavanaugh had perjured himself, unless Kavanaugh continues to deny ever having blacked out as a result of excessive alcohol consumption. If you’ll recall Kavanaugh’s testimony, then you’ll remember that he said “I know what happened” on an occasion when he had been observed stumbling out of a bus at Yale. He did not say that he remembered what happened. This implies that he may be relying upon friends to close the gaps in his memory.
Late4dinner is late for his meds, I think. At any rate, this comment is way down the rabbit hole.
Denial is Jay’s rabbit hole. Say hello to Kavanaugh when you get to the bottom, Jay.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackout_(drug-related_amnesia)
L4Yoga enables David Benson, R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – The studies are mostly based on college kids, who are for the most part light-weights when it comes to drinking. They are also self-reporting (always iffy). If you want true information on blackouts, you need to ask the AA meetings or rehab centers for adults. Ask the people who have been at it for awhile. Talk to the pros, not the amateurs.
I am not pleased to read this since it is going to be used “as if” it is a FACT. This seems to me to be a matter of opinion. Moreover, doesn’t this have to be balanced against Kavanaugh’s post college history, both professional and personal? This includes his time with President Bush and his last 12-years as Judge serving on the 2nd highest court in the land. He may or may not have been on a few occasions a “mean drunk,” but this is very subjective. He has certainly comported himself professionally for decades is what I take away from this.
The term “semi-hostile remark” and “mean drunk” are both completely lacking any concrete definition, something with a PhD. should, would, and in this case does know. This implies intent to mislead. Breaking news: alcohol is AKA “liquid courage.” Be sure to know the DNC spins this into Brett being Godzilla on steroids.
J. Jones,..
You got in nearly the same comment I was going to make before me.
In addition to the vague terms like “semi-hostile remark”, the alleged incident ends up with “a mutual friend in jail”.
Not Kavanaugh, but someone else gets arrested.
Kavanaugh is a lying sack of sh*^, a disciple of Trump.
I’d like to say your mother wears combat boots but I won’t instead I ask the moderator why your allowed to comment?
The truth, that’s why. Kavanaugh misrepresented the statements of others, which are being proven as the ‘others’ are revisited as is being done now. No one ‘refuted’ anything. That is entirely a Kavanaugh fabrication. Kavanaugh had the opportunity to present himself as a privileged child, who sometimes went to extremes when mixing alcohol and hormones, who partied, played sports, and achieved academically what would have been improbable if he were an alcoholic in the works as a teenager. Instead he ‘refuted’ everything and played the Trump card. Kavanaugh could have stated that his professional record does not illustrate what he was alleged to have done as a teenager and that he did not remember anything remotely resembling the allegations, perhaps because of the amount he had to drink. He could have apologized to Ford for something that he may have done, that he did not remember, and that was no longer anything remotely resembling who he is now. That would have put the matter to sleep and this politically biased, in favor of double standards for elitists, would have probably made it in, to hopefully temper himself to the spirit of the SCOTUS. Instead he denied absolutely everything, spent most of his time referring to what a great guy he was, attacked a necessary hearing as a conspiracy politically designed by Democrats, etc. Kavanaugh is not SCOTUS material but he is a lying sack of sh*^, just like Trump.
issac – you apologize to Chrissy, hell you may have done it. In the original statement there were four unknown boys.
1. Is there any indication this man was ever a ‘friend’ of Kavanaugh?
2. How does the college roommate he didn’t like count as a ‘friend’?
DSS – I had a college roommate I didn’t dislike, but we were really never friends. We ran in completely different social circles.
1. Is there any indication this man was ever a[n] ‘enemy’ of Kavanaugh?
2. How does the college roommate he didn’t like count as a[n] ‘enemy’?
i had several roommates who were fakes phonies and liars.
If i were up for anything important– thank god I am not — they might surface and make up lies too
credibility is always an issue even for victims of assault and liberals, when they say things. we don’t HAVE to believe them if they are not credible. simple as that.
likewise, neither do we have to believe our own people when they are not credible
likewise, sometimes enemies tell the truth more reliably than friends
Nat Hentoff is dead and Alan Dershowitz is pushing 80. Democrats have no real principles anymore, just improvisations which they invoke in pursuing what they really want. Now, Democrats are pretending that the standard to occupy a public office is to behave like an old-school Methodist. Cute.
Alan Dershowitz is a Trump supporter. Kavanaugh lies and not just about drinking and sexual assault. Perjury is a crime and a person who lies to congress doesn’t belong on the Supreme Court.
Justice Holmes – should a person who lies teach at a major university?
Have you heard what Kavanaugh had to say about Bill Clinton’s perjury in denying having had consensual sex with Monica Lewinski? What goes around, comes around. Call it what you will. Karma or cheater’s proof?
Karma and cheater’s proof (whatever the hell that is) are not sound evidentiary principles, except in the minds of people Late4Meds.
The cheater’s proof is a mystical occurrence in which the Basketball Gods use their divine powers to negate bad officiating. The most common manifestation of this phenomenon is when a player gets a “superstar call” (in which no significant contact is made but the whistle blows anyway) and then misses one or both of the ensuing freethrows. Other examples include: when a player steals the ball by making illegal contact and then has it stolen back in a similar manner; when a player travels without incurring a violation but then turns the ball over in some other way (such as throwing it out of bounds); and so on
L4Yoga enables David Benson, R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – the thing was they had Monica’s testimony and she spilled the beans. She was very forthcoming. Very, very, very. Did you know that Bill Clinton had genital herpes? I didn’t until I read Monica’s testimony. Clinton is the first President we know who had an STD while in office. That did not show up on his medical reports. Wonder why?
What Kavanaugh said about Bill Clinton:
“I am strongly opposed to giving the President any ‘break’ in the questioning regarding the details of the Lewinsky relationship — unless before questioning on Monday, he either (i) resigns or (ii) confesses perjury and issues a public apology to Ken Starr.”
Keep in mind that Clinton had consensual sex with Lewinski and lied about it under questioning by Kavanaugh.
L4Yoga enables David Benson, R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – lied under oath. They had her statement and the blue dress.
He hasn’t lied at all, but partisan Democrats fancy that if they just keep repeating that, it can be taken as true.
Kavanaugh might neither know from his friends nor remember for himself enough of his own conduct to be capable of committing perjury in statements pertaining to behavior that occurred while Kavanaugh’s brain was experiencing thiamine deficiency caused by excessive consumption of alcohol.
has he got any DUI convictions? there’s the usual proof of lifelong alcoholism. ….how about any complaints made to police about any kind of drunken unlawful behavior? another usual proof
just more gossip
if the media is in charge then gossip will rule the day and the media will be even stronger.
you can see the fundamental dubiousness about what constitutes a “free press” emerging from this mess.
free like billionaires own it and bend the news to suit there interests– maybe that is as much a threat to the republic as governmental tyrant; that is, tyranny of private interests
L4Yoga enables David Benson, R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – you really are relying on the idea that Judge Kavanaugh blacked out enough times to have huge gaps in his memory through out life. What about Chrissy? Wouldn’t that count for her, too?
I’m not relying on it. I’m offering it freely as an affirmative defense for lying to Congress. The trouble is that, if Kavanaugh admits to blacking out, then the current he said/she said controversy becomes a she said/he can’t remember case, instead.
L4Yoga enables David Benson, R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – you are such a trip.
Judge Kavanaugh testified that he DID at times drink too much to be enibriated, but he never blacked out.
You’re insisting the moderator be precise when he’s been bound and determined to not be precise. The amount of base-stealing in his commentary is truly dismaying.
The term “blackout” can also refer to a complete loss of consciousness, or syncope.
Never be surprised when a lawyer engages in lawyer talk. That Kavanaugh admitted that he sometimes fell asleep as a result of excessive drinking while denying that he had ever “passed out” is the tell in Kavanaugh’s response to Mitchell’s question–which, btw, specifically used the term “passed out” in place of the term “blacked out.” So there you had two lawyers engaging in lawyer talk with one another under the guise of cross examination. Mitchell’s question to Kavanaugh was more worthy of a defense counsel than a prosecutor.
L4Yoga enables David Benson, R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – you linked the Wikipedia article. Did you not read it? There is a huge difference between passing out (becoming comatose) and blacking out (not remembering your activities for a specific period of time. And there is a difference between falling sleep and passing out. How much drinking to excess have you done?
You’re grasping. This man remembers an occasion when Brett Kavanaugh got into an argument with someone having had something to drink, an episode you’ll discover in the biography of most men. Not in phlegmatic or timid men, but most men. You can, if you so choose, pretend this is ‘proof’ he was a problem drinker, and thus prosecute him for ‘perjury’. If you’re an ass.
If you fancy he’s a problem drinker, you have to explain the following:
1. How he finished all his degrees and licensure on time.
2. How he has remained gainfully employed w/o interruption for 28 years
3. How it is he’s had no objective indicators of problem drinking, such as DUI charges or spells in rehab.
4. How it is that he is a 53 year old man who passes for 43 easily. That’s not what you look like if you’ve been hammering yourself for 35 years.
You obviously have not heard about or known a highly functioning alcholholic.
Justice Holmes – I have known a few high functioning alcoholic and none had the work output of Judge Kavanaugh. There is nothing in his background to show that he was other than an occasional drinker who sometimes went over the limit. As long as he wasn’t driving, I don’t care. His school work did not suffer, his family did not suffer, his work did not suffer. None of the signs are there.
Even with a high functioning alcoholic, by this age he would have hit a bottom at least once. No indication of that.
It’s entirely probable that Kavanaugh stopped drinking to excess shortly before he got married, or shortly after he got married, or shortly after his wife bore her first child and that Kavanaugh drank to excess only as a young man in prep school and at college. Come to think of it, I’d bet that Kavanaugh’s favorite Beatles song is “I Got By With A Little Help From My Friends” and his calendars, too.
There’s a difference of degree between drinking beer versus drinking beer to excess. Mrs. Kavanaugh strikes me as a perfectly capable woman. I doubt that she let’s her husband get away with excessive beer drinking on her watch.
Did you know that, if you rebut the claim that wasn’t made, then you’ve yet to rebut the claim that was made?
You obviously have not heard about or known a highly functioning alcholholic
Because such people are sociological ivory-billed woodpeckers. Very few in the wild.
Again, he’s not that, or he’d have suffered considerable physical damage that would be evident at this time. He hasn’t. No amount of lying by Peter Shill pretending otherwise is going to persuade people who can look at him with their own eyes.
Tabarrok has made a specialty of refuting claims that were not made. Most likely because the claims that were made are more difficult to refute.
Kavanaugh admitted in his SJC testimony to having drank occasionally to excess during prep school and college and to having fallen asleep occasionally in consequence of having drank to excess during prep school and college. Kavanaugh denied that he had ever “passed out” because of it. But that’s not the only meaning of the term blackout. Blackouts are also memory losses that can be either en bloc or fragmentary. You don’t have to lose consciousness to experience a blackout. The en bloc amnesia is most common in people who get drunk quickly by, say, chugging beer, for instance. People who drink at a more measured pace, yet still to excess, are more likely to experience fragmentary amnesia. Young men who get drunk quickly by chugging beer to excess are not necessarily alcoholics (yet), let alone life-long alcoholics (yet), least of all high-functioning alcoholics (yet).
That Kavanaugh is no longer a young man chugging beer to excess on occasion in no way whatsoever refutes Kavanaugh’s own admission that he used to be a young man who chugged beer to excess on occasion and fell asleep because of it on occasion.
L4Yoga enables David Benson, R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – you really need to read the article you linked on blackout. You are getting the information wrong. And remember, except for one study, it is all self-reporting.
let’s take a well known functioning alcoholic, for example. Conor McGregor, a top MMA champion, who made a historic boxing match in his one outing against Floyd Mayweather, a fantastic athlete, and a known drunkard.
he got in trouble for throwing a dolly into a bus to attack a rival. typical drunk behavior; and he recently showed up for a press conference with a whiskey bottle in his hand.
no disputing that guy’s a high functioning alcholic; but the question is can you be one for decades and ONLY your long lost enemies will tell, not one’s own observed public behavior?
trust me most lawyers and especially judges who are heavy drinkers, everyone knows.
DSS – throwing a drink in the others face is a time honored response to an insult in a bar. Remember he is the insultee, not the insulter. He is defending. Think of the number of woman who have thrown drinks into the faces of guys. Are they belligerent drunks?
The democratic members of the Senate Judiciary committee are all sorely in need of having drinks thrown in their faces, then the glass, then the barstool.
The Democrats on the panel were trying to get BK to completely lose it. How BK didn’t go off on Blumenthal when he brought up the once a liar comment is remarkable. Booker should have recused himself.
There is something wrong with a process where a nominee’s life work, for a position which is measurable respective to the constitution, is being raked over the coals by Senators who’s life work is spent trying to find loopholes in the constitution.
many women are specialists at throwing drinks in people’s faces.
oh sorry, another sexist yet true remark
No partisan Democrat has accused Kavanaugh of being a woman.
Why would Heart of Darkness insinuate such a thing?
L4Yoga enables David Benson, R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – you idiot, you got into the conversation late. Mr Kurtz comment is a response to a comment I made. You have to have the pair for it to make sense. It is like owning bookends. You need both of them, not just one.
PC Schulte,..
Some of them are.😉😀
Tom Nash – you got me there. 😉
For some reason, anonymous keeps coming up.
Monks and nuns from cloistered monasteries are the only people who could pass this kind of scrutiny. Oh, I forgot their christians.
I find violent drunks to be among the lowest form of human scum, but that — in and of itself — is evidently not disqualifying to the men who are supporting Kavanaugh. However, lying about it in sworn Senate testimony disqualifies him from SCOTUS and from his current seat on the federal bench. (Remember how GOP impeached Clinton for perjury? Same standard should apply here.)
Dawn Forsythe – I have spent my fair share of time with drunk and throw a drink in someone face after an insult does not rise to violence. Cracking his skull with the pool cue does.
PCS — That was then, this is now. Lots of behavior that got a pass in the days of our youth in Montana met the legal standard for assault, but no one would have dreamed of pursuing it as such, because community mores would not support it. The police, if called, would have simply told everyone to calm down and go home — and everyone would have complied. If someone had insisted on pressing charges, it would have gone before a justice of the peace who would have rolled his eyes and dismissed the case.
Today, every uninvited touch is treated as a serious criminal assault; every unflattering remark is treated as a threat or even as “hate speech.” As much as I hate the concept, I think that we ought to bring back the draft — nothing teaches you better about what kind of behavior by others is trivial than experiencing nontrivial military discipline in an environment from which there is no escape and in which you do not get to choose your companions.
Porkchop – we need to bring back the Marine Corps of the 1960s. That would teach these snowflakes a few lessons. 😉
“Remember how GOP impeached Clinton for perjury? Same standard should apply here.”
Remember how the Dems, including Feinstein, let him skate? And, oh by the way, they (including, again, Feinstein) were none too concerned with his alleged sexual harassment or rape, either.
The whole Democrat approach to this and a whole host of social justice issue is just an endless nauseating exercise in casting motes out of other people’s eyes.
he doesn’t fit my standard of violence or being a drunk.
i have known plenty of violent drunks and this man is not even close to the likes of them
even the most peaceful can become angry. didn’t Jesus get angry? anger is an emotion, violence is an action. the two are different things, even if related
Dawn Forsythe’s tri-colored collie-type dog [Sheltie?] has awesome tan points and a crazy dragon look in his or her eyes.
It’s a sham. Get on with the vote.
The totality of the evidence should be considered. This fact is not good when combined with the other statements. Heavy drinking in college is certainly not determinative but taken with Dr. Ford’s testimony and BK’s outburst at the end of his testimony-re Clinton’s etc, is enough for me to conclude BK should not sit on the S. C.
JMW – Katz who is Chrissy’s attorney was also Bill Clinton’s attorney in the Paula Jones case. She and the Clintons are more than nodding acquaintances. Katz heads or co-heads a Soros Resistance Group. She has an excellent labor law reputation, but she is a strange choice for this hearing. And especially to work pro bono. None of those attorneys work pro bono.
Whatever your opinion on Dr. Christine Blasey-Ford’s testimony, calling her Chrissy does not undermine her credible claim whatsoever, but it does make you look like a bully who hates women.
I don’t see you referring to Judge Kavanaugh as Brett, or better yet, ‘Bart O’Kavanaugh’. Can’t you even pretend not to be partisan for even one moment?
As to your allegation that Dr. Blasey-Ford knows the Clintons, I would be very interested in your source. The Clintons were dirty dealing politicians, just like Trump, only in my opinion, better educated, practiced, and smoother in their delivery of falsity.
It is time to demand greater integrity in government on both sides of the aisle.
L.J. Stark – Chrissy played “widdle me the 4 year-old” at the hearing, so that is what she gets called. It is probably what she is called by her student and Google interns as well as her husband. It is what she is called in her yearbook and what she was called at UNC. So, as an egalitarian, it is good enough for me.
No, that is not egalitarian, and the fact that it is good enough for you speaks for itself. Trauma sometimes causes regression, and victim blaming (even alleged victim blaming) and bullying are repugnant.
Sorry, I read your post too quickly. It is Katz who knows the Clintons. That makes more sense, and I do apologize.
L.J. Stark – apology accepted. 😉
I think myself, and most of my friends, are guilty. And, only one of them turned into an alcoholic and lost his family. The rest are good citizens and good family men.
If you commit perjury in a confirmation hearing or any judicial type matter, it is perjury and should her punished appropriately. But only if you are a conservative. So Kavanaugh is out, he lied about how much he drank in college. But Bill Clinton is ok, he only lied about having sex in the White House in a civil proceeding.
Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction. The same fate should befall Kavanaugh for lying under oath in the Senate investigation.
Except that he didn’t lie under oath. That’s just another falsehood from the Democratic Party meme-pushers.
So you say. In the legal field we call this “conclusory” analysis. You offer no proof, nor can you definitively prove, that he did not lie under oath. It is merely your opinion, which does not carry the weight of authority. Also, many people, some of them conservative politically, disagree with your opinion vehemently and persuasively.
I firmly believe it will be conclusively proven that Kavanaugh intentionally offered false testimony on small points. This probably will not stand in the way of his confirmation, but it certainly should. Candor before the tribunal and integrity matter, especially on the Supreme Court.
i wont hold my breath. you must not be a practicing lawyer to think this amounts to perjury. then again a lot of the commentators floating around cyberspace who say they are lawyers, may have a JD, but don’t actually work as lawyers.
a lot of them are like the abundant number of girls in my law school, who got law degrees and then DIDN”T actually work a single day as a lawyers ever after.
a working lawyer can tell is about as far from perjury as the purported victim’s story was a credible accusation of sexual assault. as in. “NOT”
So you say. In the legal field we call this “conclusory” analysis.
And normal people call it a false assertion.
Pro-tip: telling me you’re a lawyer and telling me you swallow Christine Blasey’s fictions hook, line and sinker is telling me that you’re lying about your occupation, or that Chrissy has you on retainer, or that you are one lawyer a prudent person should not hire.
You’re gambling against the FBI background check. Given the corroborating evidence that Kavanaugh provided about the Thursday July 1st, 1982, “Skis” party at Tim Gaudette’s house, your gamble seems desperate. A person such as Tabarrok might even call it foolish.
Paul makes a fair point. But what would the perjury be, exactly? BK did say he drank too much “sometimes” – which would appear to line up with this alleged incident.
Presumably sober or slightly buzzed people don’t mix it up to the point someone ends up in jail.
While these reports are concerning, I am not seeing the a-ha! moment where perjury could come into play. If it does, well bring on Amy Barrett.
FWIW – the nation sustained a member of The Choom Gang in the Oval:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/post/the-choom-gang-president-obamas-pot-smoking-high-school-days-detailed-in-maraniss-book/2012/05/25/gJQAwFqEqU_blog.html?utm_term=.94221f860522
It’s his word against the Judge period. He is looking back over 35 years and many events that happened in my youth have been embellished through time. Ludington’s statement is counter to many of the Judge’s female friends and co-workers that have partaken in ‘beer’ with him, one even stated that he was the go to guy. I would press Ludington on his ‘purposely socialized’ comment as to it’s meaning. Did some someone twist his arm, or what? Sounds like another liberal academician trying to make points with his counters.
You do not have to “excessively drink” to throw a drink in the face of someone who insults you. And excessive is subjective, which we know by the changing number on the drunk-o-meter chart. That he threw a drink in his face is a lot better than hitting him over the head with a mug. Just saying.
Delighted to know that Kavanaugh
Is a normal human being.
No saints in Colleges.
I think the liberal left has completely destroyed what was the greatest country in the world. I am so sick of their BS. This ritual defamation (gang-raping the reputation of a good man) must stop! They lost the election, but they refuse to relinquish power. Now, what do you call that? Totalitarian!
With friends like him, who needs enemies?
Yes – opinion. He speaks of Kavanaugh being insulted. What was the insult? These are college kids. I’ve probably been in 50 fights – they were fun. I miss them.