The excuse on which some senators and the Washington Post editorial board are settling to oppose Brett Kavanaugh is that he was too angry in his Senate testimony last week.

This is an excuse, because like so many lines of attack by Kavanaugh's opponents in politics and the press, we know for a fact that they would attack him either way. Recall conservative-turned-liberal Bruce Bartlett back right after the charges hit the press:

[Click here for complete Kavanaugh coverage]

If Kavanaugh is in fact innocent, wouldn't it be natural for him to be angry? Isn't his lack of anger suggestive of the truth of the accusations? https://t.co/MQtRWT84La

— Bruce Bartlett (@BruceBartlett) September 19, 2018

Later he added:

No. I'm just saying that's it's human nature to be angry about a false accusation. Kavanaugh is showing none and that's telling. Might mean he's guilty or might mean he's a sociopath.

— Bruce Bartlett (@BruceBartlett) September 19, 2018

Indeed.

There are two options:

1) Despite the lack of any corroborating evidence submitted for the record, you believe Brett Kavanaugh assaulted Chrissy Blasey in 1982, and he vehemently denied it.

or

2) A man was falsely accused of sexual assault and even gang-rape, an entire political party and half of the media believed it. And he got angry about it.

If you're in camp (1), vote no. If you're in camp (2) and you vote no, it seems like you're looking for an excuse.