General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAny private school teachers here? Would Chris Garrett (Squi) be fired for criticism of Kavanaugh?
Garrett was Kavanaugh's prep school buddy Squi, who was named possibly more than any other friend on Kavanaugh's 1982 calendar.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211206946
He was also the friend of Kavanaugh's that Dr. Ford was going out with at that time, despite Kavanaugh's claim that he didn't know her and he and his schoolmates didn't socialize with girls except those from the Catholic private schools.
Garrett is also the Kavanaugh "lookalike" that RW lawyer Ed Whelan smeared as possibly having assaulted Dr. Ford.
https://mashable.com/article/ed-whelan-uses-zillow-kavanaugh-innocence-conspiracy-theory/#H5Uu9D9Gzaql
It's likely Garrett could answer a LOT of questions about that summer. He'd know if Kavanaugh and Ford ever met at parties. He's know how heavily Kavanaugh drank, and how he treated women then.
But Garrett isn't on the very short list of the people that the FBI will be questioning, according to news reports.
And he's kept pretty quiet about all of this, despite knowing both Kavanaugh and Ford.
He's a teacher (middle school social studies) at a private school, Atlanta Academy.
I'm guessing that if he did involve himself in this controversy -- and especially if he provided any testimony against Kavanaugh -- he'd be at some risk of losing his job there and possibly finding it hard to get another job teaching at a private school, where (again, I'm guessing) most of the students' parents would be Republicans. Especially in the South.
BumRushDaShow
(130,394 posts)I expect that he IS on that list because from what I understand, he may be who apparently brought her to the party since she was "dating" him at the time.
The whole scenario revolves around this particular "party" and she indicated there were "4" guys and "2" girls there (including herself).
highplainsdem
(49,172 posts)Igel
(35,404 posts)They're all anonymous or untrustworthy claims that people believe or reject not so much because they trust the source but because they trust the conclusion the claim supports or denies.
It's an empirical question as to what the scope of the investigation is, and in 6 or 7 days there'll be no point in any present wrangling. Unless we use the "anti-elephant charm" approach, and claim that it's our current wrangling that made the investigation what it is (like my luckly "anti-elephant charm" is responsible for the lack of marauding elephants in my neighborhood).
BumRushDaShow
(130,394 posts)I have been a subscriber to the NYT since 1976 but as we know, the NYT ALSO mischaracterized Rosenstein's remarks. Almost ready to say "case closed" but...take them with a grain of salt.
Turbineguy
(37,444 posts)must be getting calls from nervous people who might get dragged into this.
highplainsdem
(49,172 posts)magicarpet
(14,262 posts).... for the last two weeks. Just imagine the incriminating panicked calls coming and going from that number during the last few weeks. Spoiled rotten Jesus prep school boy shits a few bricks.
Kick in to the DU tip jar?
This week we're running a special pop-up mini fund drive. From Monday through Friday we're going ad-free for all registered members, and we're asking you to kick in to the DU tip jar to support the site and keep us financially healthy.
As a bonus, making a contribution will allow you to leave kudos for another DU member, and at the end of the week we'll recognize the DUers who you think make this community great.