-
Edit: got through most of it.
The conclusions being draw from him arguing his case seem like a stretch and make it read like a loaded article.
This may seem like hair-splitting. But (1) “I don’t recall such a thing” should always raise suspicions and (2) Kavanaugh, for all his righteous weeping and insistence on his honesty, is not presenting the evidence accurately. He’s trying to suggest that it’s more unfavorable to Ford than it actually is. Saying “Everyone she says was there denies it” is far more effective than the truth: “Nobody she says was there remembers it, though one of them believes it happened.”
If you were giving evidence in this situation and you believed you had been wrongly accused, then you'd argue the case in your favour rather than the accusor.
hugo7-
If you were giving evidence in this situation and you believed you had been wrongly accused, then you'd argue the case in your favour rather than the accusor.
But he's not giving evidence, he's distorting evidence given by other people. They said, in effect, "I don't have a distinct memory of it happening", whereas his claim is that they are making the stronger claim of "it definitely never happened".
It's worth reading that through, because the more ridiculous aspects of his testimony (blustering, changing the subject, angrily turning the question on the committee, and trying to portray himself as a diligent student who would never have got drunk, despite numerous witnesses who say otherwise), is demonstrated in the second half.
ffm
A very long read, a forensic examination of Kavanaugh's testimony:
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying