I guess you can’t say liberals aren’t giving it all they’ve got in trying to keep another textualist judge off of the Supreme Court. Despite months of public campaigning against Brett Kavanaugh (pictured, left) and four days of histrionics called a confirmation hearing, there appeared to be little that was going to stop Senate approval of his nomination. But the party that invented the term “Borked” had an Ace up their sleeve. (It would be trite to call it a “Trump Card.”)
I’m taking a bit of a chance here. With the dynamic nature of information these days, all that I opine here may look silly in 24 or 48 hours. Oh well. I’m going to do it anyway.
Last Thursday, the reliably-reprehensible Sen. Diane Feinstein (D – California) unveiled the smoking gun. It was a letter she received over the summer from a California woman who claimed that Kavanaugh had an encounter with her in High School. Really, that’s about all we knew until 48 hours later. That’s when the accuser, one Christine Blasey Ford, went to the Washington Post with her story.
Ford, now a professor in California, says Kavanaugh “groped her over her clothes, grinding his body against hers,” at a party in high school in the 80s. Ford stipulates that Kavanaugh and his friend were “stumbling drunk.”
While his friend watched, she said, Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed on her back and groped her over her clothes, grinding his body against hers and clumsily attempting to pull off her one-piece bathing suit and the clothing she wore over it. When she tried to scream, she said, he put his hand over her mouth.
Ford says she first revealed the incident to a marriage therapist in a 2012 session. It is fair to point out that the therapist’s notes from that session make no mention of Kavanaugh. It also noted there were four other people in the room at the time while Ford now says there were only two.
All this comes, of course, after Kavanaugh’s background was thoroughly vetted by the FBI on six different occasions the past 20 years, covering decades of public service. None of this surfaced. And there is nothing else to indicate that such an incident (if it indeed occurred) happened again when Kavanaugh became an adult.
The reason I believed Roy Moore’s accusers were that there were several of them. And some had actually come forward long before he ran for Senate. Plus there was so much else about Moore that suggested he was a scumbag. None of this is evident with Kavanaugh.
I know bullshit when I smell it. Democrats are simply trying to run out the clock, banking on big gains in the mid-terms so they can have more say over the ideological bent of Anthony Kennedy’s replacement on the Supreme Court. This is, in an odd way, the same gambit that Mitch McConnell took when he delayed hearings on Merrick Garland until after the Presidential Election. That could have resulted in a much more liberal nominee. But I would say the gamble paid off.
The fact that these allegations are crafted such as they are is not a coincidence. Proving a negative is impossible, especially 35 years after the fact. These are unsubstantiated allegations from a lone accuser that have been strongly denied by both people allegedly involved. As such, Kavanaugh is in a no-win situation. People are demanding he prove that he did NOT try to rape someone. 35 years ago. As a drunken teenager.
As of right now, there is no evidence the party even happened. There is no evidence she ever met Kavanaugh or his friend. There is no evidence Kavanaugh and his friend were drunk in a room with a girl. There is no evidence Kavanaugh was at the same party. There is no evidence ANY of this happened. These accusations can never be proven or disproved. And the Democrats know it.
The timing begs other questions. Why didn’t Feinstein didn’t bring this up during her face-to-face meeting with Kavanaugh? Was it less serious then? If she were so worried about getting to the bottom of these allegations, why did she not bring them up weeks ago when she first learned of them? Why the delay? (That’s a rhetorical question. We know why.)
There are more questions about the accuser’s credibility. Ford’s lawyer claims Ford wanted anonymity and reached out to Feinstein privately. But the Washington Post reports Ford first reached out to them on a tip line. Why did she take a polygraph and hire lawyers if she wanted to remain anonymous? Also, alt-sources are reporting that Ford evidently spent a good portion of her weekend scrubbing her Social Media accounts. More credible sources have also linked her to supporting Democratic causes and donating to Democratic candidates.
Now let me do something I rarely do and play the “whataboutism” card. Those who are screaming the loudest about this were totally silent when deputy DNC chair and Congressman Keith Ellison was accused of domestic assault…this, despite the evidence of 911 calls that validated the story. And I am going to wager that the same people screaming about Kavanaugh are the same ones who defended Barack Obama’s drug use as a 20-something as “youthful indiscretion.” On the flip side, many assured us that roughhousing by Mitt Romney when he was 14 years old was a perfect mirror into his soul. Spare me.
So what are we left with? We have a hazy allegation from someone who is clearly an ideological opponent of Kavanaugh’s. The claims are unsubstantiated and uncorroborated, and are vehemently denied by the other two people mentioned. Those accusations are presented in a way where they can never be proven nor disproved. And they come about at a time calculated to achieve political ends. That is, to run the Senate’s version of a Four-Corner offense until the mid-terms where they hope to became the Majority party in the upper chamber.
It’s OK. Kavanaugh will still be confirmed and the left can bitch and moan about every ruling he makes—just like they’ve done with Clarence Thomas. You know what difference it will make? None. Shoulda nominated Bernie.