This video.
The man was evasive, no doubt. Believe your eyes. You see what you see. He bullshitted his way through a very direct question. If he was lying by evasion, he is not qualified to be on the bench he sits on, much less the Supreme Court. He's pinned on that, unless there is stonewalling to the FBI.
One may even conclude that any federal appeals court judge who bullshits like that is unfit for anything but bullshit, but opinions can differ.
He says he needed to know a roster of everyone at that law firm. Get real. He knows who Sen. Harris was asking about and wiggled like a worm on a hook with a poised fish eying the situation. If the FBI ducks that responsibility, why have an FBI involvement?
By the way, it is a great song. One often underrated in a body of work. Worth the time of listening.
By the way, there is an online guess of who at that firm Kavanaugh may have spoken with, and there'd be some kind of office log of who visited to have a meeting with whom there. Tangible evidence which could be tampered with, but absent tampering, paper records cannot misrecollect or shade truth.
Visit logs would be a first start at finding Sen. Harris' question answered. Secretaries type things and can be questioned. Something worded a way, typed shortly after a meeting of some kind, could be circumstantial evidence.
If Kavanaugh had any privileged attorney-client relationship with any lawyer at that firm he'd have immediately asserted it when Harris questioned him. He didn't. Saying that in any tardy way has no credibility.
May the FBI come through in a trustworthy and thorough fashion in its time-constrained opportunity. The nation deserves that.
___________UPDATE_____________
Worth note in particular, with regard to the Harris questioning mentioned above, is this item, and how it begins with Sen. Blumenthal's question about a jury instruction.
The ball is in the FBI's court. May they return a killer shot.
__________FURTHER UPDATE_____________
Why have an investigation if it is not a complete and wide-ranging background check, now that questions exist? What's the value of one so constrained that it will yield not even a bigger fig leaf? WaPo. Requests and refusals, if any, to submit to polygraph examinations might be relevant in the court of public opinion.
The Mueller investigation inquiry is on a separate plane from the sexual misbehavior/drunken belligerence question, but this is a job interview for a judicial seat of the highest rank, for life (unless impeached), and such a matter, and evasion over it, is more troubling a concern about the present overarching character and fitness of the appointee for the job. Present testimonial integrity clearly affects qualification for the post. With that anchor fact, what purpose is served by dancing around short of a full investigation? Deflection and deceit are not virtues, nor is constraining those who know best how to do a complete background check once the question of background becomes a key point. The FBI needs a free rein in this instance. If Kavanaugh had a conversation of the kind for which Harris sought an answer, how can that not be relevant to fitness for such a job? It deserves sunshine, whatever diligent inquiry may uncover.
