Kavanaugh’s Devil’s Triangle

Guest Post by Dr. Tony Nugent, retired professor of religion and symbology.

blurred pornIn his litany of boasts in his Georgetown Prep yearbook, Brett Kavanaugh includes the entry “Devil’s Triangle.” Although he claims disingenuously in his Senate testimony that this term refers to nothing more than a drinking game played with quarters, its common meaning when applied to human behavior is a ménage-à-trois, “a colloquial term for a sexual threesome consisting of one woman and two men.”

According to the testimony of Christine Blasey, a sexual threesome appears to be precisely what Kavanaugh and his buddy Mark Judge were enacting, with her as a third, non-consenting participant, in the summer of 1982.

After being pushed into the bedroom, Brett and Mark came in, locking the door behind them. Brett covered her mouth with his hand, “got on top of me” and “tried to take off my clothes,” but “he had a hard time because he was so drunk.” Mark, who was “was urging Brett on,” jumped on the bed twice, then they toppled over, and Christine escaped. Here we have an aggressive, non-consensual ménage-à-trois. Was what happened that night what Kavanaugh would immortalize a year later in his yearbook as his “Devil’s Triangle”?

A compelling case has been made that this sexual assault occurred on Thursday, July 1, 1982. According to Kavanaugh’s summer of 1982 calendar, he attended a party on that date at “Timmy’s” home (Timmy Gaudette), and those who were there, or who Kavanaugh expected to be there, included “Judge” (Mark Judge), “Tom” (Tom Kane), “PJ” (Patrick Smyth), “Bernie” (Bernie McCarthy), and “Squi” (Chris Garrett).

According to Christine Blasey’s account of the party where she was assaulted, an account which she gave before Kavanaugh’s calendar became public, others present besides Kavanaugh were his friend and accomplice Mark Judge, P. J. Smyth, and “one other boy whose name I cannot recall.” Do we not here have independent corroborating evidence backing up Blasey’s account?

In Blasey’s testimony she states, “During my freshman and sophomore school years, when I was 14 and 15 years old, my group of friends intersected with Brett and his friends.” Kavanaugh testified to the contrary that “she [Blasey] and I did not travel in the same social circles.”

That Blasey is testifying truthfully, and Kavanaugh untruthfully, about the intersection of their social circles is supported by the evidence of Kavanaugh’s calendar, by the fact that during that summer Blasey was dating Kavanaugh’s friend Chris Garrett, and by the fact that she was introduced to Chris by Mark Judge.

Other boasts in Brett’s yearbook also appear to refer to his heavy drinking, sexual promiscuity, and humiliation of girls. He claims to be the “Biggest Contributor” to the “Beach Week Ralph Club,” a reference to vomiting due to excessive drinking; he claims membership in the “100 Kegs or Bust” drinking group, seniors who pledge to drink 100 kegs of beer by the time of their graduation; and he is a “Renate Alumnius,” meaning that he, like others in this school, is claiming to have sexually “scored” with Renate Dolphin (also see the yearbook photo of nine football players, including Kavanaugh, with the inscription, “Renate Alumni”).

Kavanaugh also includes this note in his yearbook: “Judge – Have You Boofed Yet?,” apparently a friendly taunt to his friend about whether he’s engaged in anal sex. In Judge’s yearbook he asks the same question of Kavanaugh: “Bart, have you boofed yet?” Judge uses the name “Bart” for his friend Brett. In his book Wasted: Tales of a Gen X Drunk, Judge says he asked a girl named Mary, “Do you know Bart O’Kavanaugh?,” to which she responds, “I heard he puked in someone’s car the other night,” and then Judge says, “Yeah. He passed out on his way back from a party.”

The combination of heavy drinking and aggressiveness in Kavanaugh’s “Devil’s Triangle” assault on Christine Blasey, while he was a student at Georgetown Prep, continued to characterize his behavior as a student at Yale. When he would get ‘incoherently drunk,” according to James Roche, his freshman roommate, he would also get “belligerent.” Classmate Chad Ludington says, as quoted by The New York Times, “The judge had often become belligerent and aggressive while intoxicated.”

Other Yale classmates provide specific accounts which suggest that Kavanaugh’s behavior at times involved a combination of drunkenness and sexual aggression or humiliation. According to Deborah Ramirez, Kavanaugh was drunk at a dormitory party during his freshman year when he shoved his penis in her face. And according to Lynne Brookes, when interviewed by CNN’s Chris Cuomo, Kavanaugh and Chris Dudley, another classmate, were very drunk when they “thought it would be really funny to barge into a room where a guy and a girl had gone off together and embarrass that woman.” Brookes says “the girl was mortified and I was furious.”

In a 2015 speech at Catholic University of America’s Columbus School of Law, Kavanaugh said, “Fortunately, we had a good saying that we’ve held firm to this day…which is: What happens at Georgetown Prep stays at Georgetown Prep.”

This echoes what Kavanaugh said in a 2014 speech at a Yale Law School Federalist Society banquet about the time when, as a student at the law school, he organized a bus trip of 30 classmates that went to Boston “only for us to return falling out of the bus onto the front steps of Yale Law School at about 4:45 a.m.” Then he added, “Fortunately for all of us we had a motto: What happens on the bus stays on the bus.”

Unfortunately, for Kavanaugh, his behaviors at Georgetown Prep and at Yale, including the incriminating details, are slowly emerging into the light. And there is surely more to come. The devil is in the details, and that includes his “Devil’s Triangle,” his aggressive ménage-à-trois with his buddy Mark Judge and their victim Christine Blasey.

Symbologist and author Tony Nugent, Ph.D. is a retired religion professor. 

Advertisements

About Valerie Tarico

Seattle psychologist and writer. Author - Trusting Doubt and Deas and Other Imaginings. Founder - www.WisdomCommons.org.
Gallery | This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Kavanaugh’s Devil’s Triangle

  1. Thanks Valerie, well written. Sure hope the FBI investigation uncovers evidence to keep such a misogynist from a life time position on our highest of courts

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Gerry Clark says:

    It is absolutely amazing that the Republican men of the Senate have behaved as they have. Their understanding of privilege must overshadow their concern for a daughter, a granddaughter or niece. Kavanaughs don’t happen to good rich girls, only those whose ask for it!

    There are 10 Republican Senators who must be unseated!

    Valarie, can this blog be a spark plug to organize and raise money for such an effort?

    If not we than who?

    Like

  3. thompsonsbrent says:

    You asked about evidence that corroborates Dr. Blasey’s account of her sexual assault. In my opinion, a fair assessment of her account should seriously consider the assessment of Sex Crimes Prosecutor Rachel Mitchell, who, as you know, was there during Dr. Blasey’s sworn testimony.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gop-hired-prosecutor-rachel-mitchell-questions-credibility-of-kavanaugh-accuser-christine-blasey-ford/

    Like

    • Thank you. From what I read she was saying that the testimony does not meet the standard of criminal charges. That seems not surprising, as I doubt there are many folks who think they know what happened beyond a reasonable doubt. But that is not the standard here. This is a job interview for one of the most powerful and honorific positions in the country. I don’t know what the appropriate standard of evidence might be in this kind of situation. More probable than not?

      Like

  4. mriana says:

    Even “the devil’s triangle” in this case, is all about power- privileged white male- power over women. His behaviour in the hearing was nothing more than a demand for power and his behaviour on the Supreme Court, if he makes (I hope not), will be nothing short of more of the same thing. He loves feeling as though he is in power, which the act of rape gave him that feeling, and if he is not, what you get is a little boy begging and demanding to have power back.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Perry Bulwer says:

    Sex Crimes Prosecutor Rachel Mitchell is an “Aunt Lydia”, defending the patriarchy by attacking a woman. Her assessment of the evidence against Kavanaugh is completely biased and disingenuous. The ability to present all the evidence and all the witnesses was seriously interfered with by the unnecessary, politically motivated restrictions imposed on the hearing by the Republicans. In other words, the committee did not have all the relevant evidence in front of it, and Mitchell knows that. Not only does she assess the limited evidence as if it tells the whole story, her analysis is only applicable in a court setting, not a job interview, which is what the hearing is. As for who was more believable, Dr. Ford’s testimony, base on science, about how that traumatic memory was burned into her brain was far more credible than Kavanaugh’s laughable, lying explanations for many of the entries in his calendar and year book.

    Here is better question for Mitchell to consider: did Kavanaugh violate the American Bar Associations’ Model Code of Judicial Conduct?
    Rule 1.2: Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary
    A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence,* integrity,* and impartiality* of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.

    Kavanaugh is not fit to judge a county fair hog calling contest. He’s revealed his deep bias and should be impeached and removed from the Federal Court.

    Like

  6. John Zelnicker says:

    It’s beginning to look like Kavanaugh may have problems that are more disqualifying than a disputed sexual assault, which should be enough by itself, IMNSHO, given the credibility of Dr. Ford and the dissembling by Kavanaugh.

    There is evidence accumulating that Kavanaugh not only lied in his recent hearing, but also in his nomination hearing for his current position on the DC Court of Appeals. There is also some evidence that he may have violated the secrecy of grand jury testimony while working for Ken Starr. If these allegations are true, not only should his nomination to the Supreme Court be withdrawn, he also should be impeached and removed from the Court of Appeals.

    It’s really a bit surprising that the Republicans haven’t cut bait yet. They are going to be smothered in November if they keep pushing Kavanaugh. I’m hoping the FBI will come up with something that gives the Republicans enough cover to drop him. I know the Federalist Society has plenty of other candidates that fit the same anti-woman, anti-minority, pro-corporate model, but there must be some that don’t have the baggage that Kavanaugh does and who would not bring disgrace to the Supreme Court.

    Like

    • Perry Bulwer says:

      I think the U.S. Supreme Court has already been brought into disrepute by the corrupting influence of politics. The judge had no clothes, and without his robes his political bias clearly showed. Remember, Kavanaugh was considered a shoo-in. If brave women didn’t come forward he would be sitting on the court right now basing his legal decisions on his political ideology. The political nature of the U.S.’s top court seems absurdly unjust to this outside observer.

      Like

      • John Zelnicker says:

        Perry – I agree completely. Outside observers often see more clearly than the people in the middle of the issue.

        The Supreme Court took a huge hit to its reputation as soon as McConnell said he would not allow Congress to consider Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland, violating long-established protocols. It’s been all downhill from there.

        However, IMO, the Supreme Court took its biggest hit to its reputation when it appointed Bush to the presidency in 2000. Certainly, most of its decisions since then have been much more partisan than non-partisan.

        Like

  7. I don’t know how we restore the legitimacy and credibility of our system of governance. It seems obvious to me that we need to limit money in politics. It seems obvious that nobody should be appointed to the supreme court or federal appeals court without bipartisan approval. It seems obvious that we should transition to ranked choice voting and rectangular (ie non-gerrymanderable districts). But there’s always one or the other party in power and they don’t want to make even these common sense changes.

    Like

    • John Zelnicker says:

      Valerie – All excellent suggestions. I would add that we should also consider ways to limit the term of Supreme Court justices. I learned recently that the US is the only developed country that appoints its top court judges for life.

      One proposal I have seen recently, though I’m not sure where, was to impose a limit of 18 years. There are a few reasons why this might be a good number. It exceeds the term of two two-term presidents, and, if staggered, would limit how many justices any single president could appoint. Of course, it also brings in new perspectives and worldviews and, hopefully, keep the Supreme Court up to date with the wishes of the people.

      Like

  8. Yes. I should have included that because it is on my mental list, too. I also think there should be an upper age limit for the court. Most of us begin gradual but measurable cognitive decline in middle age. I love RBG, but frankly nobody in their 80s or 90s should be ask to interpret the law rather than simply regurgitating it.

    Like

  9. Perry Bulwer says:

    Canada’s Supreme Court has a mandatory retirement age of 75. Here’s a good explanation of the difference between the US and Canadian high courts and why political partisanship plays almost no role in the Canadian system even though the justices are appointed by the Prime Minister. https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/why-canadas-supreme-court-appointments-are-nothing-like-americas-circus/

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s