>>His behavior, having a tantrum in front of a Senate committee (and Graham's decision to do the same) made it clear to me he had no defense. There's an old saying for lawyers: "If you have the facts on your side, hammer the facts. If you have the law on your side, hammer the law. If you have neither the facts nor the law, hammer the table.”
>
>There's another explanation...it's not quite as valuable for someone with an agenda, but....
>
>If memory serves me, back in 2013, you used some uncharacteristically strong and emotionally heated language towards Rick H. (And you were completely justified in doing so). He was making a completely B.S. accusation regarding some community stuff, and you told him off.
>
>Now...imagine if (and I say "if") you've been falsely accused of what Kavanaugh was accused of. In that case, I don't blame Kavanaugh one bit. You see, this is what the liberal agenda wants to do....gas-light their opposition and then use their angry reactions as proof. (And conservatives do the same thing).

There is a difference between having a strong, even angry, reaction and what Kavanaugh (and Graham) did. They had tantrums.

I don't actually remember the incident you mention, but knowing myself, I suspect that after repeated provocation, I probably allowed myself a single expletive. I'm sure I didn't melt down, blame a conspiracy, and promise revenge.

Tamar