Share This Article with a Friend!

Outsiders vs. Insiders: What skeleton will desperate Dems dig up next to stop Kavanaugh?

Desperate times call for desperate measures.”

The old saying (attributed to the Greek physician Hippocrates) certainly applies to the Democrats of late. The minority party is throwing a collective conniption fit over Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination, griping and moaning about insufficient document production, lack of time to review the information they already have and Kavanaugh letternow, an 11th hour mystery witness has allegedly come forward to discuss an element of Kavanaugh’s deep dark past.

If Democrats’ behavior doesn’t fit the textbook definition of “desperate” I’m not sure what would.

As if four days’ worth of excruciating committee testimony weren’t enough for Democrats to assail Kavanaugh’s character and qualifications, now they’re pulling out the old disqualifying witness playbook from Clarence Thomas’s hearing days. Susan Ferrechio reported at the Washington Examiner, “Republicans rushed to defend Kavanaugh Friday, and one GOP aide noted that ‘people have made the connection’ to the Thomas inquiry after the Judiciary Committee’s top Democrat, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., first announced the existence of the claim on Thursday, despite having knowledge of it in July.

“Outside groups who oppose Kavanaugh say the proceedings should be halted now that details have emerged about the accuser, who claims Kavanaugh held her down at a party, covered her mouth, cranked up the music, and attempted to sexually assault her.

“’We already have an accused sexual predator in the White House and we don't need yet another on the Supreme Court,’ Heidi Hess, a director of the progressive activist group CREDO Action, said Friday. ‘Senate Republicans must not rush forward with Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation while new information continues to be revealed about his past sexual misconduct.’”

(Note: Kavanaugh’s accuser identified herself over the weekend, but the analysis is the same.)

According to Ferrechio’s report there isn’t going to be any “new information” coming forward about this claim from Kavanaugh’s high school days, which Feinstein and senate Democrats apparently learned about long ago (in July) but held back, probably in hopes of keeping an ace in the hole. They no doubt figured they’d need just one juicy tidbit of scurrilous gossip to grab the public’s attention before the final votes on his nomination.

Republicans countered with a letter signed by 65 female friends of the would-be judge from his preparatory years, all claiming Brett was a good guy, the type that didn’t hold girls down and make advances without their consent. So, in essence it’s yet another case of he said/she said, the latest iteration of the “Me Too” inquisition circus consuming our workplace culture. Not to make light of sexual harassment, but by the sound of it all guys who came of age in the 80’s were monstrous creeps in search of unsuspecting girls to satisfy their desires.

Uh-oh, that includes “me too” … no pun intended.

Rape is extremely challenging to prove even when the alleged crime is contemporary to the charge and there’s physical and circumstantial evidence to back up the victim’s claims. Time is of the essence to gather and preserve proof. “Consent” is always the sticking point…and with the justice system’s presumption of innocence, getting a conviction is far from a done deal even when the case is strong and the accused willing to cooperate (Kavanaugh denies the incident ever took place).

Needless to say, investigating the assertions of a witness about an alleged assault well over three decades ago would be close to impossible. How would they go about finding witnesses who could corroborate the victim’s story? Would anyone other than her and the accused remember being in the situation she described?

Think back to your own high school experiences. You might remember going to parties and may even recall certain people being at them. But can you place two specific individuals together on one occasion at a precise place and time? If you can your memory’s better than mine. And it’s not like there were security cameras or other video images back then to provide backup. Heck no, the VCR had barely become commercially available at the time (1979-83) … nor security cameras of that type.

This Feinstein-inspired witch hunt is the equivalent of throwing darts in the dark at a dartboard you can’t see and only know exists because some unidentified voice in the lightless environment told you “it’s there somewhere.” Of course, you always want to believe someone when they’re talking about being harmed, but if we acted on every accusation from a person who felt wronged during their teen years all of us would be in the pokey.

Fortunately Heidi Hess (quoted above) gave away the Democrats’ true aims in the matter – one, to delay the confirmation votes as long as possible and two, to try and tie Kavanaugh’s sexual history to Trump’s. How desperate are leftists to stop Kavanaugh that they’ll do anything to associate Kavanaugh’s character with the pre-presidency repute of celebrity former playboy Donald Trump. How does it translate?

It doesn’t. But everyone knows Democrats are frantic to eliminate Kavanaugh. Forget Clarence Thomas, this is a redux of the scheme liberals deployed to deny Judge Roy Moore an almost certain senate seat last December, digging up and exposing claims from the 70’s linked to Moore’s alleged fondness for underaged girls at the time.

As it got closer to the election more and more women (now in their late 50’s and 60’s) suddenly recalled being groped by Moore, as though his face appearing on campaign posters jarred the unpleasantness from the cobwebs of the distant past. If these people were put through cross-examination on the witness stand none of it would hold up. The justice system protects the innocent for a reason – motivated individuals just can’t haul out something from years ago and make it stick to someone you have a grudge against.

That’s what totalitarian state dictators do against political enemies. Oh yeah, that’s what the Democrats want here in the good ‘ol U.S. of A. It all makes sense now!

Democrats are obviously poring over every little bit of possibility to block Kavanaugh now, especially knowing his four days of testimony failed to tarnish his sterling background and character. If anything, the spectacle made his questioners look foolish and ignorant – if you don’t believe it just ask Senators Corey Booker and Kamala Harris. Their senseless grandstanding may have elevated their profiles as potential Democrat presidential candidates but shot them out of reasonable contention with the national electorate.

Democrats are now hauling skeletons out of Kavanaugh’s high school closet to make him the next Clarence Thomas in the public’s eyes. Thomas has openly opined about how he’ll never get his reputation back from the baseless “high-tech lynching” he endured – and he’s right. Will the same fate befall Kavanaugh?

Thomas’s accuser, Anita Hill, has even reemerged to weigh-in on the controversy. Chris Mills Rodrigo reported at The Hill, “Anita Hill on Friday spoke out about allegations against nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, saying that decades after she first accused a Supreme Court justice nominee of sexual harassment, it is still ‘incredibly difficult’ for accusers to come forward.

“Hill, now a professor at Brandeis University, argued that the Senate Judiciary Committee needs to establish a process to allow ‘anyone with a complaint of this nature to be heard.’ …

“Hill in 1991 testified against then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas. Her public testimony that he made unwanted sexual advances and discussed sex and pornography with her helped launch a movement to highlight sexual harassment faced by women in the workplace.”

“Movement” is one way to describe what Hill started. It’s more like the woman triggered an avalanche of sleaze that could be steered in midcourse towards any direction the politically correct thought police felt compelled to send it. Hill became the left’s instant spokeswoman because she haphazardly concocted a story with no proof that made it appear Thomas was unfit to serve on the Supreme Court. By appearances it was a former employee trying to get back at a boss she didn’t like.

Let’s just stipulate that many of these harassment claims are legitimate and yes, Anita, it’s incredibly difficult for accusers to come forward knowing they’ll face a public wringing just like the men they’re indicting. It’s understandable why Monica Lewinsky -- or big bubba Bill Clinton’s courtroom full of victims -- didn’t desire to take on the Clinton machine knowing full well their reputations would be ruined and lives shattered by exposing Bill’s prurient appetites.

The deck is stacked against women speaking out against Democrats especially – the liberal establishment regards them as hollow trailer park trash, the media takes Clinton’s side, Democrats don’t give a hoot unless it’s a conservative or Republican being accused and any punishment resulting from a “conviction” won’t come close to fitting the crime.

In Lewinsky’s case she’s forever inexorably linked with one of the biggest scandals in history that ended in an impeachment trial and the annihilation of any semblance of American political harmony that existed prior to the 90’s. Everywhere she’s gone since and everywhere she’ll ever go the name “Monica” activates an emotional response.

But it’s also absurd for Hill to insist every claim be thoroughly investigated because frankly, there are individuals with plenty of incentives to lie. And there already exists a process “to be heard” – it’s called the criminal justice system (the civil system too). It’s flat out unreasonable to ask the United States Senate to delay or cancel a vote on a fully vetted Supreme Court nominee because some acquaintance of Kavanaugh’s from the early 80’s remembers (or thinks she recalls) an incident that can’t be proved one way or another.

The political system is already bogged down by the senate minority’s incessant procedural stalling tactics and the establishment GOP leadership, led by Mitch McConnell, shows little gumption to press Democrats to the wall on their more outlandish ultimatums. If (Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman) Chuck Grassley were to bow to Feinstein’s outrageous demand and put off a vote, how long a period would satisfy Democrats?

A week? A month? Six months? Until after the 2020 election? How many documents do Democrats need to satisfy them? Is there an end date in sight? What would they suggest is a proper time to hold a vote? How many witnesses must be called to get to the bottom of this story?

It's hard to contemplate how crazy this has become with one-half of the political spectrum so consumed with conspiracy theories and knee-jerk reactions that nothing positive ever gets done. For Democrats it’s always delay, delay, delay. We can’t have immigration reform because a Democrat constituency might react negatively -- so illegal aliens continue streaming over the border and the Trump administration is chastised for enforcing the law.

Meanwhile, the budget process invariably goes down to last minute deals hammered out by party leaders to “keep the government open” without any lawmaker having a clue what they’re actually voting for. And the good people (like Congressman Jim Jordan) who state the truth and complain about the political dysfunction are demonized by the media for being “obstructionists.”

It can’t continue this way, can it? Jonah Goldberg wrote at National Review, “On both sides, our democratic norms aren’t being destroyed so much as turned into cudgels. It’s as if a rage virus from a sci-fi movie has broken out and people are grabbing anything — staplers, coffee mugs, chairs — that can be used as a weapon.

“What’s being weaponized in the current crisis are the tools that leaders are normally entrusted to protect: the rules, informal and formal, that should bind everyone. Partisans are breaking them over their knees like pool cues, ever confident that someone else started it.”

Goldberg was specifically referring to an interview Vice President Mike Pence gave disparaging former President Obama’s recent reemergence from hiding to deliver campaign-like speeches shattering the long-held tradition of past presidents not criticizing current presidents. Goldberg used the opportunity to make it sound like both sides/parties are equally blameworthy for the breaking of “democratic norms.”

Yes, people who live in glass houses should not throw stones… but Democrats can’t resist, because they’re desperate.

Goldberg is correct that there’s culpability all around for the current sorry state of American politics, but Republicans never go to the same lengths as Democrats to achieve their aims. Both parties’ establishments are primarily concerned with preserving the status quo and don’t care how bad it looks when otherwise mundane processes are turned into freak shows. If Republicans fought fire with fire the situation would deteriorate into a hopeless quagmire.

Time will tell whether anything comes from Democrats’ latest desperate attempt to defeat Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination. Republicans have it within their power to confirm him before the Supreme Court term begins next month; will they ignore the noise and just get it done?

Share this