Short Take: Sucks To Be Mark Judge

Imagine if you’re some random guy who was friends with someone who, decades later, became a nominee for the Supreme Court and ended up in the middle of the gender war vortex. You did things back then that were unseemly and wrote a book about it, admitting that you were a drunk, that you engaged in conduct which, in retrospect, you regret. Not that anyone cared much about you. Until you ended up on the front page.

If you were Mark Judge, would you want to be in the middle of this storm? There’s no upside for Judge. If he came out smelling like a rose, he wouldn’t win any prize. He’s not being nominated for anything. He’s not going to get a talk show out of it, or be asked to give inspirational speeches to groups of kvelling women.

His position is that he has nothing to offer in support of Christine Blasey Ford’s accusations against him and Brett Kavanaugh. He’s not saying he remembers, and it never happened, although words to that effect appear to have been uttered.

I do not recall the events described in Dr. Ford’s testimony before the US Senate Judiciary Committee today. I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes.

Let’s assume, arguendo, that Judge cooperates with the reopened FBI background check and repeats these words verbatim. It can be argued that he does not affirmatively state that Ford’s accusations did not happen, but he forecloses the possibility that they did in his second sentence.

Calls to compel Judge to testify, to repeat these words, aren’t the point. Does any modestly intelligent person believe they are, or that he will break down under the fierce examination by Kamala Harris and, sobbing, exclaim “yes, we did it, Brett did it, Brett tried to rape this poor girl”?

There is a fairly obvious reason why the Democrats on the committee demanded his testimony, beyond the mere fact that he wasn’t going to testify, leaving him an open wound to exploit without any fear that they would be taken up on their challenge and the vapidity of their demand exposed. Mark Judge could offer generalized testimony, without regard to Ford or this particular accusation, about the lifestyle of teenaged Brett Kavanaugh. Judge was the key to Kavanaugh’s drunk debauchery as a teen, if not directly (assuming Judge refuses to state that Kavanaugh was a drunk or engaged in debauchery), by association as Judge’s own book betrays any claim of his own purity.

Judge offers his own personal reasons why testimony would be traumatic, from being a recovering alcoholic to a cancer survivor, from suffering from depression and anxiety, all of which touch on issues that those concerned with progressive concerns deeply appreciate until there is someone they hate enough to ignore every claimed belief they hold dear. Destroying the poster boy for toxic masculinity is more than enough reason to sacrifice Mark Judge for the cause.

Would Judge not be put in the position of invoking his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent before the committee if he had been complicit in the sexual assault of Christine Ford? Of course, but that would be fine, as fodder to undermine Kavanaugh’s denial. After all, no innocent person invokes the Fifth, right? Sure, that used to be the case, but sides have flipped, arguments swapped and each side believes with absolute certainty the position they rejected with absolutely certainty before.

Mark Judge is a red herring in all this, a sacrificial lamb to a sacrificial lamb. If he went public, testified before the committee, his world, which apparently sucks now, would reach new depths of awfulness. Maybe even a depth from which he can’t recover. Who willingly seeks to take a crappy life and make it worse, maybe so bad that it’s no longer worth living?

It’s completely understandable why the Democrats on the committee, and their supporters, want Mark Judge to testify. He might have nothing to offer on Ford, but he could open a window to a sordid youth they could exploit to great advantage. But at least recognize that your tears for Ford come at the sacrifice of Judge, whose life you care nothing about. Wrapping it in pink ribbons doesn’t make the lie any prettier.

Judge has nothing to offer on Ford, whether you believe him or not. He has made that clear “under penalty of felony,” as has become the committee’s fashion to say. That he refuses to do your bidding to open the window into Kavanaugh’s wild childhood of misadventure, if not sexual assault, isn’t about you. It’s about a guy trying to survive who never asked to be part of your war. Not that you care.

Mark Judge will never be able to fade back into the mist. His name will always be tied to this fiasco. This won’t matter to you, as you don’t have to be him, to live his life, to suffer his misery. But to the extent he doesn’t have to cooperate in his further ruination, to elevate his profile and the hatred he’ll suffer for whatever he says short of Kavanaugh is as the rapiest rapist who ever raped, it would be insane for him to do otherwise.

Judge’s life already sucks. Don’t hate him for not allowing you to make his life suck even worse.

20 thoughts on “Short Take: Sucks To Be Mark Judge

  1. Joe

    The way they’ve all talked about Mark Judge, I suspect he’s off the wagon. I really hope that that’s not the case.

  2. Troutwaxer

    As a Liberal I would say “We all gots problems.” That doesn’t mean that we can’t ask for some kind of reasonable accommodations, like a hearing room which does not contain the press, but in the end we all have to testify if called to be interviewed or testify in court (or something similar.) This is part of the price we are all expected to pay for being part of a civilization, and sometimes it sucks. But it doesn’t buy Mr. Judge an excused absence.

    1. SHG Post author

      Not only is everything you’ve said wrong, but it’s wrong. He need not agree to an interview. If he’s not subpoenaed, he need not testify. If he is subpoenaed, he can assert his privilege. Your feelz ain’t a substitute for the law.

  3. Losingtrader

    It would be so much better if Judge was the guy seeking appointment to the Court. At least the TV ads would say something like , “make Judge Judge judge”

  4. Jardinero1

    It sucks even worse to be these guys. [Ed. Note: Link deleted per rules and who gives a flying fuck.]

    I read the rape statutes for Maryland, such as they are today; don’t know what they were in 1982. I don’t think the description of Ford’s assault fulfills all the elements of any of the statutory definitions of rape, in Maryland, today. If I was sitting on a jury, I would find it hard to convict, based on the supposed facts I know now. But, these men are taking a huge chance by coming forward.

    They emerged some time ago, but the judiciary committee kept it wrapped until Wednesday, the day before Ford’s testimony. There has been very little else reported about it since. I would imagine they have made the FBI’s short list to be interviewed.

    1. SHG Post author

      I hear there’s a great thread about this on reddit. Just so I’m clear, this isn’t an invitation for you to argue why another story is relevant and fascinating, but my nice way of telling you that if you don’t feel like commenting on the topic of my post, go elsewhere.

      1. Jardinero1

        Sorry, I understand your rules and knew I was taking a chance posting that. Please allow me just a little credit for trying to relate it to the theme of “sucking to be so and so.”

  5. Lee

    “Does any modestly intelligent person believe they are, or that he will break down under the fierce examination by Kamala Harris and, sobbing, exclaim “yes, we did it, Brett did it, Brett tried to rape this poor girl”?”

    I’m sure Perry Mason could make him confess on the stand. Of course, notwithstanding that he is a fictional character, he probably wouldn’t take the case.

  6. B. McLeod

    I don’t think anybody really expects this “investigation” to develop anything new. The people who are making the “it’s just a job interview” and “this isn’t a criminal trial” arguments obviously understand there will never be enough corroboration here to make a valid case. Their demand is to nevertheless reject the nomination on the premise that nominations should be rejected based on some range of sufficiently nasty uncorroborated accusations. It is an open call to discard fairness, logic and fundamental principles of our society, Formerly rational organizations such as the ACLU have now weighed in behind this, hijacked by fanatics and turned diametrically against their own charter principles. Essentially, those who would make weaponized use of The Terror are going all-in. The vote, when it comes, is a vote on The Terror. Sadly, it will be a vote left to senators, who tend to not be people of high principle or moral courage in this day. Will they have the gumption to stand up against this modern-day McCarthyism? I must admit I do not have much confidence in an appropriate outcome.

  7. Mary McPhee

    Anytime I want to read a fucktard’s view I come here and you never fail to disappoint. You must be so sad no one but the sycophants who lick your asshole and not in a fun way care one shit about your views. Thanks for making me laugh I needed it right now

    1. Kathleen Casey

      You’re a free agent. Trailer park talk is a choice. So is kicking your brain in gear. You made yours.

    2. Skink

      Really now, Mary, ass licking and fucktard is the best you can do? We have clients that do a better job of denigration.

      Don’t you have a substantive argument on the issue? There are many. Or is it that you’re just tossing an empty McDonald’s bag out the window as you drive by this here Hotel?

      1. SHG Post author

        Mary needed to get it out or her head would explode. I don’t want her head to explode, Skink. It would make an awful mess.

        1. B. McLeod

          Her obvious rage and indecorous remarks reflect the nervousness of the “believe the woman” fanatics at this moment. They are all-in on blocking this nomination, and there is at least a colorable possibility the vote could go against them. If it does, that will be a major setback for the cause. It could even prove to be what breaks The Terror in this current iteration. She is probably shrieking insults at every male passerby on the street as well.

    3. David Meyer Lindenberg

      I’m kinda impressed she can spell “sycophant,” but can’t make her subject and verb agree.

      1. Nemo

        That’s a feature of these #AOL!-ers, not a bug. I suspect that SHG’s right, trying to present a logical, fact-driven argument would make their heads explode.

        Regards,

        Nemo

Comments are closed.