Kavanaugh gives a detailed explanation of his use of credit card debt to buy baseball tickets.

I'm reading "Kavanaugh offers details on Nationals tickets purchases that led to debt" (which is the second-most-read article in The Washington Post at the moment, right after "'Never give an inch': Trump keeps touting perceived failures as successes").

In explaining the debt to members of the committee, Kavanaugh noted that he is a “huge sports fan” and said that he bought four season tickets annually from the Nationals’ arrival in Washington in 2005 until 2017. He also bought playoff packages in 2012, 2014, 2016 and 2017.

He split the tickets with a “group of old friends” through a “ticket draft” at his home, Kavanaugh said. “Everyone in the group paid me for their tickets based on the cost of the tickets, to the dollar,” Kavanaugh said in the written responses to the Senate Judiciary Committee that were made public Wednesday. “No one overpaid or underpaid me for tickets. No loans were given in either direction.”

In 2016, Kavanaugh reported between $60,000 and $200,000 in debt, according to his financial disclosures, which was spread out over three credit cards and a loan. The debts were either paid off or dipped below the reporting requirements the following year.

But Kavanaugh signaled that his debt at the time was far lower than $200,000, saying in his written responses Wednesday that his debt was “not close to the top of the ranges” he reported on the financial disclosures.

There's more in the article, going into written answers Kavanaugh gave to various questions, but WaPo forefronts the baseball question — which suggests the low impact of these other things. The baseball question makes him look good: he's got a wholesome interest in a classic sport and some great friends to share it with. Maybe the other material, further down in the article, makes him look even better. Otherwise, wouldn't WaPo have put it first?

And by "other material," I see he was given 1,287 questions — written questions, after long days sitting and answering the questions in person (questions that I thought got awfully repetitive). But I guess those in-person questions led to questions about his answers, and many of the new written answers are repetitions of the answers he'd already given. But this is new, we're told:

Kavanaugh told Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.) that President Trump has called him twice to “offer words of encouragement” but added that “at no time did he ask for any promise or representation as to how I would rule in any case, and at no time did I offer any commitments.”

Unremarkable. I guess one might muse about whether Trump talked about his own troubles and told Kavanaugh he's lucky, because he only needs to weather these few days of hearings and he'll be home free, unlike the President who's so unfairly battered every day.

Kavanaugh also tried to clarify lingering questions about his use of the term “abortion-inducing” drugs in describing birth control, in response to questions from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa).

Democrats have said Kavanaugh was referring to all birth control drugs. But Kavanaugh said he was only describing the position of the plaintiffs in the case.

But were the plaintiffs in the case referring to all birth control drugs? I'm still confused about that.

Then there's the "snubbing" of Fred Guttenberg (the father of one of the Parkland murder victims):

“It had been a chaotic morning with a large number of protesters in the hearing room,” Kavanaugh wrote. “As the break began, the room remained noisy and crowded. When I turned and did not recognize the man, I assumed he was a protester. In a split second, my security detail intervened and ushered me out of the hearing room.... Mr. Guttenberg has suffered an incalculable loss. If I had known who he was, I would have shaken his hand, talked to him, and expressed my sympathy. And I would have listened to him.”