Dear Editor:

In his Nov. 7 letter of rebuttal to columnist Byron McNutt “Republicans put­ting party ahead of country,” Terrance Moe went back to the well in order to dump a bucket of perjury allegations on Justice Brett Kavanaugh after the bucket of sex crime allegations from a few weeks prior came up empty.

Quoting Moe “Lost in the maze of unsubstantiated accusations and premature judgments is a simple, obvious truth. Kavanaugh has demonstrated a pattern of lying under oath. Setting aside all of the controversy over Kavanaugh’s formative years, it does not require a rush to judgment to conclude that perjury should not only be an obstacle against advancement to the highest court, but an impeachable offense.”

Lacking even a morsel of evidence to support Moe’s claims, slam-dunk conclusions such as “A simple, obvious truth,” and “Kavanaugh has demonstrated a pattern of lying under oath,” is nothing more than a round of reckless rhetoric the likes of which are notoriously employed to control outcomes in oppressive regimes where presumption of guilt takes precedence over the sacred legal principle found in free countries: presumption of innocence. 

In Kavanaugh’s scheduled set of Senate confirmation hearings three weeks before his unexpected historic confrontation with professor Christine Blasey Ford, Sens. Dick Durbin and Patrick Leahy attempted to initiate a perjury smear against Kava­naugh by alleging he lied multiple times during his 2004 and ’06 confirmation hearings for lower court positions. 

Shortly thereafter, even the left-leaning Washington Post rebuked Durbin and Leahy for presenting evidence containing “significant omissions and/or exaggerations” and “factual error and/or obvious contradictions.”

And all last-minute perjury claims emerging from the aforementioned historic hearing experienced similar debunking, including:

Two of Kavanaugh’s classmates at Yale made headlines by coming forward to accuse him of lying about the extent of his drinking in college. In a CNN interview one of Kavanaugh’s classmates asserted, “I would’ve stayed on the sidelines if he’d said, ‘I drank to excess in high school. I drank to excess in college. I did some stupid things.’ But to lie under oath, to lie about that, then what else is true?” Yet, Kavanaugh testified, “Sometimes I had too many beers. I liked beer. But I did not drink beer to the point of blacking out.”

The other classmate issued a statement to the media in which he proclaimed, “I can unequivocally say that in denying the possibility that he ever blacked out from drinking, and in downplaying the degree and frequency of his drinking, Brett has not told the truth.” 

Yet, when pressed by reporters, the accuser could not recount a single instance in which Kavanaugh passed out, blacked out, or suffered memory loss as a result of overdrinking.

An NBC News scoop materialized out of nowhere. According to the story, Kavanaugh lied during the hearing when claiming he never had discussions with former classmates about the incident described by Deborah Ramirez, who alleged that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her during a drinking game when they were classmates at Yale. 

But the bombshell report blew up on NBC when evidence proved that it was Ramirez who contacted former classmates attempting to recruit them into corroborating her claims, not Kavanaugh making contact to shape minds prior to the allegations going public. 

Kavanaugh’s testimony also came into question regarding his explanation of nonsexual references in his high school yearbook that media outlets insisted were undeniably sexual activities, and therefore Kavanaugh had perjured himself. However, in two separate letters to the Senate Judiciary Committee, a total of seven witnesses with direct knowledge corroborated Kavanaugh’s testimony. 

Frank Gabl

Prospect Heights, Ill.