Flashback: When Brett Kavanaugh's lack of anger proved his guilt

[Free Vulcan]

The excuse on which some senators and the Washington Post editorial board are settling to oppose Brett Kavanaugh is that he was too angry in his Senate testimony last week.

This is an excuse, because like so many lines of attack by Kavanaugh's opponents in politics and the press, we know for a fact that they would attack him either way. Recall conservative-turned-liberal Bruce Bartlett back right after the charges hit the press:

    If Kavanaugh is in fact innocent, wouldn't it be natural for him to be angry? Isn't his lack of anger suggestive of the truth of the accusations? https://t.co/MQtRWT84La
    — Bruce Bartlett (@BruceBartlett) September 19, 2018

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/flashback-when-brett-kavanaughs-lack-of-anger-proved-his-guilt

[INVAR]

And if he was visibly angry, that would have been said to be evidence of his guilt of the bogus charges.