Columns, Congress, Constitutional Law, Criminal law, Society

Boofed Is The New Borked: How Democrats Laid A Perjury Trap For Brett Kavanaugh
Screen Shot 2018-10-03 at 6.55.48 PM
Youtube

Below is my column in USA Today on what appears now to be a clear perjury strategy against Judge Brett Kavanaugh that focuses more on his credibility than his alleged criminality.  There are many who have questioned whether Kavanaugh testified truthfully on the meaning of well-known sexual terms as well as his statements on his prior drinking habits.  Clearly, any false testimony would be a barrier to confirmation regardless of the subject.  Yet, this confirmation could create a new term for future nominees: “boofed.”  The questioning on high school lexicon and conduct is a new element in confirmations — precedent that could further degrade our process for selecting Supreme Court justices.

Here is the column:

As the FBI continues its investigation into claims that Judge Brett Kavanaugh is a serial sexual assaulter, it remains doubtful that dispositive or even incriminating new evidence will be uncovered given the declarations submitted on the record by principal witnesses. But that may never have been the real strategy against Kavanaugh. This looks like a perjury trap.

While Kavanaugh believed Democrats were trying to paint him as an extremist, as they did Robert Bork in 1987, they actually were trying to trap Kavanaugh into false statements on terms and conduct from decades earlier. Indeed, Kavanaugh could achieve the immortality in the lexicon of confirmations not as a “Borked” but a “boofed” nominee.

The FBI is investigating allegations by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford with the disadvantage of limited time (one week) and a locked-in record. The key witnesses have already made their statements under penalty of felonies to Congress, where they deny any recollection of the party described by Ford or even seeing such conduct by Kavanaugh. The Democrats knew this was unlikely to change with the FBI collecting additional statements.

Democrats didn’t seriously question Kavanaugh

The FBI is also looking into an allegation from Deborah Ramirez, who says Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a party while both were students at Yale. But Ramirez admitted to having problems recalling the event due to her own heavy drinking, and she said her memory was refreshed after she first declined to come forward. There have been no direct witnesses at this party who recall the disgusting act alleged by Ramirez.

What was most striking at the hearing is that Democratic senators did not seriously question Kavanaugh on the details of these allegations. Instead, they focused on his refusal to call for an FBI investigation or absurd asides, like Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal demanding to know whether Kavanaugh “believed Anita Hill” in her testimony against Clarence Thomas 27 years ago. The only substantive focus was on Kavanaugh’s drinking in high school and college, and risqué references to his high school yearbook.

While the Democrats suggested this was meant to bolster Ford’s account of Kavanaugh being almost blacked out with alcohol, it seems quite implausible given the specificity of the questions, particularly on the yearbook entries. Clearly, the Democrats were trying to establish that Kavanaugh has lied about drinking and sex in his youth.

It all came down to a single moment when Kavanaugh would be faced with admitting to alcohol abuse and embarrassing sexual terminology or deny such alleged facts under oath.

Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse provided the moment by demanding to know the meaning of “boofed,” “Devil’s Triangle” and other terms in Kavanaugh’s high school yearbook. These terms are references to anal and group sex.

Many of us were unfamiliar with them (honestly, I now realize I led a relatively monastic life), but they are apparently well-known. Kavanaugh’s description of the first as flatulence and the second as a drinking game led to a torrent of ridicule. Despite someone in Congress trying to change the Wikipedia definition of “Devil’s Triangle” to include a drinking game, Kavanaugh is believed by many to have knowingly lied about these terms as well as when he denied that he drank excessively.

It was a curious tactic for the Democrats who once argued that President Bill Clinton could not be impeached for lying under oath about sex. They now argue that Kavanaugh should be denied confirmation (or if confirmed actually impeached by a later Democratic Congress) on the basis of lies about drinking or sexual terms.

The fact is that there is no subject matter exception for perjury. A lie about anything counts as a lie. Clinton was rightfully impeached on this basis, and Kavanaugh could be rejected on that basis. (Full disclosure, I testified during the Clinton impeachment hearings that such perjury would constitute an impeachable offense).

Democrats boofed Kavanaugh

Where does that leave us? A new college friend has come forward to say Kavanaugh lied when he denied abusive drinking. Charles Ludington, a professor in North Carolina, told the FBI that Kavanaugh was a “belligerent and aggressive” drunk in college. Others have also contradicted Kavanaugh. However, Kavanaugh did not deny drinking. Indeed, as now famously mocked by Matt Damon on “Saturday Night Live,” he repeatedly (and rather painfully) said that he liked beer. He did not deny ever being drunk.

If the assault allegations are left unproven and Kavanaugh’s testimony on drinking is relatively vague, that leaves his yearbook and the sexual references often exchanged among teenage boys.

Those references in a 17-year-old’s yearbook could become the legal equivalent of the Butterfly Effect (where a butterfly flapping its wings could eventually cause a typhoon in another part of the world). They have precious little to do with any alleged assault or Kavanaugh’s undeniable qualifications as a jurist. The problem is that Kavanaugh had to answer the questions — or refuse to answer as a matter of dignity. A new political verb is born: to boof, leaving the nominee with the choice of either degrading or false testimony on collateral or marginal terms or conduct. As with Bork, boof will be available as a noun, and adjective and an adverb for future nominations.

Absent some sudden corroboration for Ford or Ramirez, it could come down to simply that. And if this is the standard for future confirmations, then we are all boofed.

Jonathan Turley, a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors, is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter: @JonathanTurley

287 thoughts on “Boofed Is The New Borked: How Democrats Laid A Perjury Trap For Brett Kavanaugh”

  1. Imagine if Sen. Joseph McCarthy had brought suspected Reds before his committee and closely questioned them about material in their high school yearbooks. I wish he had , for it would have been the subject of a thousand parodies and the slimy D’s might not have dared to do it today.

  2. Meanwhile, in every other country in the world nobody cares what their highest court judges did when they were in university.

  3. As long as Turley is blathering about “perjury traps,” let’s all take another look at the statement below from Kavanaugh’s opening statement at last Thursday’s SJC hearing.

    “To repeat, all of the people identified by Dr. Ford as being present at the party have said they do not remember any such party ever happening. Importantly, her friend, Ms. Keyser, has not only denied knowledge of the party, Ms. Keyser said under penalty of felony, she does not know me. Does not recall ever being at a party with me ever. And my two male friends who were allegedly there, who knew me well, have told this committee under penalty of felony that they don’t recall any such party and I never did or never would do anything like this.”

    Turley, himself, mentions this in his original post for this thread. The SJC got sworn statements under penalty of felony from three people alleged to have attended the gathering in which Dr. Ford alleged that the sexual assault occurred. Those sworn statements under penalty of felony were made before last Thursday’s hearing and before the current FBI background investigation on Kavanaugh. Turley says that those witnesses are unlikely to change their sworn statements made under penalty of felony when the FBI interviews those witnesses as part of their background investigation of Kavanaugh. But Turley most decidedly did not characterize those sworn statements made under penalty of felony as an effort by Republicans on The SJC to set a “perjury trap” for those three witnesses whom the FBI could and should interview to corroborate Dr. Ford’s testimony and to impeach Kavanaugh’s testimony. Is there some sort of mental block preventing Turley from perceiving the application of his own argument to a correlative set of facts? Was that last question strictly rhetorical?

    1. What Turley wrote on the subject below:

      As the FBI continues its investigation into claims that Judge Brett Kavanaugh is a serial sexual assaulter, it remains doubtful that dispositive or even incriminating new evidence will be uncovered given the declarations submitted on the record by principal witnesses.

    2. L4Yoga enables David Benson, R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – you know you have this habit where you learn something new and then you drive it into the ground for a couple of days. One size does not fit all. Chrissy perjured herself. How the committee decides to deal with that is up to them. DiFi does NOT want the FBI report made public. Now why would that be? If it found Kavanaugh guilty you would want it out there, if it found him not guilty you would want to hide it. The committee has the FBI report. The 7th background check is over.

      1. You know you have that habit of palming the painted lady up your sleeve then accusing someone else of being the Three Card Monte dealer.

        What matters most are the interview notes for Chris Garrett and Tim Gaudette. 302’s for PJ, Tom and Bernie might also matter. If there were no interviews of any of those witnesses, then you’ll know exactly who the Three Card Monte dealer was for real.

  4. Everybody lies. Researchers have noted that the frequency is about once per hour of ordinary conversation.

    When that lie is made under oath _and material_ that is perjury. (see TIN above)

    When the question is about something as immaterial as what is in a child’s high school yearbook it is clearly an attempt to trap.

    I was in college from 1961 to 1967 (with time out for Viet Nam) and never heard those terms. Back then the University of Wisconsin was noted as the “best” party school in the country. A Playboy article’s top 10 list did not have the UW on the list of the top party schools at all. They noted they refused to consider UW because they refused to compare professionals with amateurs. We never used either term. As college students we were doing, not like high school students who brag about what was never done.

    I would suggest, like the Ginsberg rule, a new Kavanaugh rule: (He should have said:) I refuse to answer that question as it reflects nothing about my judicial qualifications.

    1. ghsteele – Playboy named ASU the number one party school in the nation just before I transferred there. In all the years I went to school there, I never went to a decent party. We once had a sending off party at Creighton University that started at noon on Friday (last day of classes) and continued until about 10 pm Saturday (when I took my flight out). After three plane changes and a bus ride (weather problems) I got home and still was not sober. 😉

      Now I will say the girls sunning themselves in their bikinis on the lawn in front of their dorms may have added to this party school reputation. It sure added to the number of rear-end collisions every winter.

        1. Cindy Bragg – my mother was not pleased since she thought I was drinking on the bus. 😉

    2. “I would suggest, like the Ginsberg rule, a new Kavanaugh rule: (He should have said:) I refuse to answer that question as it reflects nothing about my judicial qualifications.”

      That would make sense but no answer Kavanaugh gave would have satisfied the Democrats. Their game is to destroy good reputations. They don’t want the debate to center on the fact they don’t like any judge that is unwilling to yield to leftist desires.

    1. Excerpted from the entry linked above:

      History and Etymology for bugger

      Noun (1) Middle English bougre heretic, from Anglo-French bugre, from Medieval Latin Bulgarus, literally, Bulgarian; from the association of Bulgaria with the Bogomils, who were accused of sodomy.

  6. Related topic here: anyone remember the Bernie Sanders article where he claimed women fantasized about being gang raped, and how he wondered why stories about 12 year olds getting sexually assaulted were appealing. Perhaps it’s time to revist Sanders and whether he has appropriate candor/temperment for public office.

  7. Here’s where this goes next. Kavanaugh gets confirmed. Then NYT or Washington Post runs an item citing an anonymous source that claims the FBI investigation was ended prematurely. Democrats then use that for a Trump impeachment, claiming obstruction of justice.

  8. “A lie about anything counts as a lie.” Not true. Both case and statutory law recognize both a willfulness element and a materiality element which must be pled and proven. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. 1001 (false statements) and U.S. v. Dunnigan (perjury) in which the court ruled that a conviction for perjury can only be sustained where it is proven that the false statement was both willful and material, and not the result of confusion, mistake or faulty memory.

      1. Excerpted from Kavanaugh’s opening statement linked above:

        I was not at the party described by Dr. Ford.

        1. L4Yoga enables David Benson, R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – it has become quite evident that no one attended the party describe by Chrissy, including Chrissy.

          1. https://www.ajc.com/news/local/metro-atlanta-teacher-interviewed-fbi-kavanaugh-probe/MFzlgpeAi5QOVLdUOT1ivL/

            Christopher Garrett was also not present at Chrissy’s fantasy gathering (he said previously he knows nothing relevant). He does have a key piece of information he hasn’t parted with: the extent of his own contacts with Christine Blasey and whether or not he introduced her to friends. He’s given his statement to the FBI, so we may know soon what he has to say about that.

            1. His lawyer sent a letter to The SJC saying that Garrett had no knowledge pertaining to Dr. Ford’s claims. That was before the testimony last Thursday and before the FBI background investigation. Garret’s lawyer’s letter was not a sworn statement made under penalty of felony. His statements to the FBI will be sworn statements.

          2. That is not evident until the FBI reports that Chris Garrett and Tim Gaudette say that Christine Blasey did not attend the “skis” party at Tim Gaudette’s house on Thursday July 1st, 1982. Or that the house in which Tim Gaudette lived in 1982 did not feature a short narrow staircase leading to a bedroom on the right-hand side as you go up the stairs and a bathroom directly across the hall from that bedroom. Or that the house that Tim Gaudette lived in in 1982 was not situated near Connecticut Avenue nor near the country club at which Christine Blasey swam.

            It is important to rebut or refute the claims that were actually made instead of rebutting or refuting strictly imaginary claims that were not made while trying to palm those rebuttals and refutations off as “quite evident.” Pshaw!

      2. Also excerpted from Kavanaugh’s opening statement linked above:

        I never attended a gathering like the one that Dr. Ford describes in her allegation.

    2. If I am correct that was a unanimous decision written by Kennedy whose seat Kavanaugh would be taking.

  9. NJ Senator Cory Booker, aka Spartacus is familiar with a term used in the LGBTQ community…………Getting “Cream Pied”

    Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to sit on the throne & squeeze a turtle.

  10. Professor Turley, you’re not alone having lived a “monastic life”. Hundreds of thousands of us (your age and older), are totally sheltered from these words although the actions may not now be unfamiliar, courtesy of Bill Clinton’s words, “I did not have sex with that woman.”

    1. At ~ 7:30, a brief discussion about blackouts.

      “I saw him both what I would consider to be blackout drunk and…” — James Roche

      1. Anonymous – so James Roche is a practiced enough drinker to spot a blackout drinker. Actually, you usually don’t do that until your mid-twenties. When was Roche his roommate? And he would have to be drinking with him almost everyday. The flip side of this is Roche is outing himself as an alcoholic. Assuming he is now a sober alcoholic, his testimony or recollections are suspect from that time. If he is still a drinking alcoholic, then all his recollections are suspect.

        1. Roche claims the two never socialized. He insists Kavanaugh was blacked out ‘routinely’. I find it interesting Kavanaugh was so forthcoming about what he remembered in the morning with someone he was on bad terms with who had so much contempt for him that he’s issuing denunciations 35 years later. Something doesn’t fit here.

          There was a 3d person rooming with them that Roche supposedly was a nuisance to; I’m wondering if he might arbitrate this dispute as long as we have to be exposed to it.

          1. DSS – there is also a section of the roommate thing that is confidential. I remember Judge Kavanaugh not wanting to get into that.

  13. With all due respect, Jonathan, if Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed, boofing is not the lowest place we will have stooped…we already have a public hair on a Coke can. The deterioration would be in the judicial quality of the man himself. I hated everything Scalia stood for, but I respected him. There is nothing in Kavanaugh to respect. Nothing.

    2. 50 million Americans find much to respect in Judge Kavanaugh, and you find nothing … nothing … to respect. That’s all about Molly’s corrupt mind and soul, and not anything about Judge Kavanaugh.

      1. The fallacy ad populum does not bolster the fallacy ad hominem nor vice-versa.

      1. Cindy Bragg – I would think that public hair is that hair we show to the public. 😉 That would be opposed to private hair that only a select few see.

  15. I remember 69 from the early 60s and I had no idea that it had any meaning other than a number. Not all students are in on the secret language and the secret language is not the same everywhere. Amazing isn’t it?

  16. Context. In Kavanaugh’s entries he asks, “Mark, have you boofed yet?”, and Judge asks the same of Kavanaugh in his. Apparently a “person” boofs. You don’t boof someone else. The word everyone’s conveniently mixing this up with is “boff”. E.g., “That girl needs a good boffing.” As far as “Devils’ Triangle” goes, do you really think he’d put something pornographic alongside his name for his parents to see? (or anyone else)?

    1. Kavanaugh’s testimony was that “to boof” means “to pass gas.” It’s always possible for people to have idiosyncratic interpretations of words. Consequently, Kavanaugh’s use of the term “boofed” would be a ridiculous basis for a perjury charge. Nevertheless, Kavanaugh and Judge’s idiosyncratic usage of the term “boofed” is not on the menu at Wiktionary linked below:

      https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/boof

      Maybe Kavanaugh and Judge were kayakers in prep school.

    2. Mr. Beaumont said, “Kavanaugh asked, ‘Mark, have you boofed yet?’, and Judge asks the same of Kavanaugh in his. Apparently a “person” boofs. You don’t boof someone else.”

      Refutation by formal analogy, “Mark, have you kissed yet? Apparently a ‘person’ kisses. You don’t kiss someone else.”

  17. Highest standards.

    No lies from judges.

    Also, impeccable behavior; proprietary at all times, even at age 17.

    1. According to Gerald Ford, William O. Douglas failed to meet the highest standards for impeccable behavior and propriety at all times. Though, I don’t recall Ford ever critiquing Douglas’s behavior at age 17. And Ford’s impeachment drive against Douglas petered out, anyhow.

    2. You mean highest standards apply to conservative judges only. We would not want to start applying such standards to progressive judges because DEMs and their lackeys would start screaming about the discrimination.

      1. No. Dr. Benson was alluding to Gerald Ford’s impeachment drive against William O. Douglas.

        Hint: Gerry Ford was not a progressive. Justice Douglas, not a conservative.

  18. Somehow I think that the Republicans are finally getting it through their thick heads that the Democrats are at war with them. But then again, maybe they won’t.

  19. The standard for any nominee seeking confirmation is honesty and integrity, my friend. You yourself said there are no exceptions to perjury. So to say that Democrats “laid” a perjury trap, is quite a creative stretch. Kavanaugh chose to lie, and a Yale roommate of his, James Roche, told the media that the judge knows he lied under oath about his drunkenness in the past. No one expects a saint and, of course, being a stellar student does not shield anyone from sexual misconduct. The problem, as we saw with Bill Clinton, is not the “sin” itself but the lying about it.

    1. But the professor is a tRump toadie so he has to defend Kav and bash the Dems. – while not asking about things like the Kav finances that stink, and some of his rulings where he decided to take the side for the billionaires and then twist the law to fit his pre-judged verdict

      Nor is the professor going to say anything bad about the Kav records that have been hidden or the rushing of the sham FBI “investigation”

      All just fake to put Kav on the court to finish trashing our country abd get tRump a get out of jail free card

  20. I remember “boof” from high school in the early 80’s. It was short for “bu-fu” which was in turn an abbreviation for “bu** fu**”. So if you think Kavanaugh is being treated unfairly by all means use “boof”, but with the understanding you really haven’t coined a phrase at all.

Comments are closed.