This is not the first time Judge Kavanaugh has had to submit to to an investigation. In addition to private practice and clerking for the Supreme Court he served as White House Secretary, Justice Department and White House Lawyer and Judge on the D.C. Court of Appeals. In each position he has undergone a detailed FBI investigation as well as public and Congressional hearings on his appointment to these positions.
No one along his career path has ever found anything that would merit any concern with his character whatsoever, even the FBI.
Senator Diane Feinstein held onto this information from Christine Blasey Ford for three months without disclosing that she had it. Only until all else failed did she suddenly, at the last minute, drop the bomb that she hoped would derail Kavanaugh’s appointment.
SHADES OF ANITA HILL. This has been the playbook of the Democrats for years now. In Presidential races it is called “The October Surprise.” Remember the Billy Bush video on Trump. NBC had that in its archives for years but waited until the very last moment to release it to the public.
By digging up dirt on a candidate – or making it up – and releasing it at the very last moment, there is not enough time to properly refute it. This simply amounts to CHARACTER ASSASSINATION without rebuttal.
Christine Blasey Ford is a far left, Marxist-Socialist ideologue. The Left routinely lies, slanders and invents stories to denigrate those that do not hold their values. Such is the case here. READ ON:
Professor accusing Kavanaugh is radical SJW (see correction)
It’s true that Bill Clinton’s liberal ’90s apologists justified his sexual misconduct with the claim “character doesn’t matter.” It nonetheless does, and since Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hopes are being influenced by accusations that may speak to his character, it’s only fair to examine the character of his accuser. And this woman, Palo Alto University psychology professor Christine Blasey Ford, is a radical social justice warrior.
Ford’s accusation goes back to her high school days, in approximately 1982, when she would have been 15 and Kavanaugh 17. She claims that Kavanaugh lay on top of her and groped her while heavily intoxicated and that the incident ended when a friend of his, Mark Judge, jumped on both of them, sending them all tumbling (you can read a more thorough account here).
Whatever the truth of the matter, however, certainly true is that Ford is a radical leftist who’d be inclined to zealously oppose a Kavanaugh nomination. For example, Breitbart reports that she not only has attended anti-Trump events, but actually donned a pink “brain p—- hat” for a 2017 anti-Trump march.
Breitbart also reports, in a different piece, that Ford was party to an ACLU letter opposing President Trump’s border enforcement efforts. She signed it as Christine Blasey, Ph.D. Psychologist, rubber-stamping “statements that accused Trump of using southern border enforcement to ‘traumatize children’ and claimed the Zero Tolerance policy was ‘violating fundamental human rights,'” writes the news organ.
Moreover, Bookworm Room points out something interesting. Ford didn’t mention her allegation against Kavanaugh until 2012-13. Why is this significant?
Because when it appeared as if GOP nominee Mitt Romney might win that year’s presidential election, liberal pundits “stoked Democrat fears that Kavanaugh, a conservative, might get on the Supreme Court and overturn Obamacare,” reports Bookworm.
So is Kavanaugh’s conservatism the real motivation for Ford’s curiously timed allegation? Perhaps. And even if her claims are true, I very much doubt she’d have come forward were Kavanaugh a leftist reprobate in the mold of Slick Willie or Chappaquiddick Ted Kennedy. For a good example of such situational sexual mores, note that liberal reporter Nina Burleigh actually said in 1998 about B. Clinton, “I’d be happy to give him [oral sex] just to thank him for keeping abortion legal.”
As for Kavanaugh, unless it’s shown that he’s like Clinton and Kennedy and has exhibited a pattern of sexual wrongdoing, there’s nothing to see here. Ford claims that the 36-year-old alleged incident of sexual misconduct took place in a room with only her and the two boys present. So while 65 women who knew Kavanaugh in high school have come forward to vouch for his character as a gentleman, Ford’s lone word is the only claim against him. It’s not “he said, she said” but, at least right now, “she said – and he and everyone else said.”
Parallels to the last-minute defamation of Justice Clarence Thomas by Anita Hill during his Supreme Court confirmation hearing are clear:
The 27-year-old “Anita Hill” strategy of digging for dirt on a Supreme Court nominee didn’t work with Clarence Thomas back in 1991. But desperate times for liberals call for desperate measures.
Just as with Anita Hill, no doubt it took a concentrated effort of importuning by a host of liberal Senate staffers and interest-group partisans to wrest from another college professor a last-minute allegation of sexual misbehavior designed to sink a Supreme Court appointment at the eleventh hour[.] …
At the time, Kavanaugh and Mark Judge, the friend she alleges was with him, were both students at Georgetown Preparatory School.
Judge told The Weekly Standard last week that the allegation against Kavanaugh is “just absolutely nuts.” A total of 65 women who knew the judge in high school sent a letter to the Senate last Friday stating, “He has always treated women with decency and respect.”
As Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley pointed out, “Judge Kavanaugh’s background has been thoroughly vetted by the FBI on six different occasions throughout his decades of public service, and no such allegation ever surfaced.” Perhaps also of note is that Ford seems to have airbrushed all politics out of her online profile, including her professional bio on LinkedIn, though according to public records she has made small contributions to the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Friends of Bernie Sanders[.] …
Regardless of the validity of the accusation, the timing on it is straight out of Anita Hill. The woman is said to have approached Senate Democrats in July, but two months later, in the public hearing, Kavanaugh was never asked about the incident, nor did it come up in the 1,278 written follow-up questions he has since answered.
The timing is indeed straight out of Anita Hill. These charges are reminiscent of the campaign of smear and innuendo leveled at former GOP presidential candidate and successful black American conservative businessman Herman Cain. Cain’s candidacy derailed after repeated and unproven sexual harassment allegations by former employees. Like Harry Reid’s tax lies about Mitt Romney, the strategy worked.
Liberal accusations against Republicans are accepted as credible immediately. Smear first, prove later. Guilty until proven innocent. To various extents, it worked with Romney and Cain. Why not Judge Brett Kavanaugh?
What is left unsaid is that we will no longer have a free country or enjoy civil liberties and the safety of a Bill of Rights, if any American, at any time, can be ruined by an allegation of unproven sexual assault of some 36 years past, when the accused was a 17-year-old teenager, by an accuser who initially trafficked anonymously in such allegations, came forward only as part of a wider, more intensified and collective last-ditch effort to destroy the reputation of the accused, and yet has no clear memory of exactly where she was at 15, or the approximate date, when she claims that she was assaulted, or why she made no such accusation for 30 years—or when she raised the issue some six years ago privately during counseling, why her therapist’s notes of such revelations do not now match her current version of the incident.
Most would assume that when Blasey Ford wrote in her allegation, “I have received medical treatment regarding the assault,” she would produce proof of a confirmable visit to an emergency room or doctor fairly soon after the alleged attack—not subsequently refer to a couples therapy session 30 years later, during which the therapist took notes that now do not, six additional years later, synchronize.
Now, with Trump’s nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, we appear to have reached the metaphorical end of civilization that Bork foresaw: when Republicans are disqualified based on unprosecuted, unprovable, and largely unremembered misconduct that allegedly occurred when they were in high school.
Judge Kavanaugh is as superbly qualified as any jurist ever nominated to the Supreme Court. In a dozen years sitting on the same distinguished appellate tribunal as Bork, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Garland, he has generated over 300 opinions. This prodigious jurisprudence is cited regularly by the Supreme Court, as well as by other circuit courts of appeal and federal district judges.
Kavanaugh’s hiring of clerks has been exemplary by any standard of not only scholarship but diversity (more women than men, a healthy percentage of African Americans, Asian Americans, and Hispanics). If you’re into this numbers game, as the Left surely is (at least when conservative judges are at issue), it’s worth noting that Justice Ginsburg hired no African-American clerks or administrators in 13 years on the D.C. Circuit and has hired only one African-American clerk during her ensuing quarter-century on the Supreme Court. Of course, she’s a good progressive committed to placing her judicial power in service to the March of History, so the matter is quietly tucked into the Left’s bulging “Not to Be Spoke Of” file. Meanwhile, clerks from Kavanaugh’s eclectic stable are coveted by Supreme Court justices on both sides of the ideological spectrum. He has, moreover, been a stalwart champion of women in the legal profession, as well as girls in his community.
Now, however, Kavanaugh’s nomination is imperiled because of a highly dubious, unverifiable allegation of bumbling, drunken sexual aggression when he was a high-school student: An assault the purported victim never told anyone about — not the police, not a friend, not her parents — until therapy sessions 30 years after the “fact.”
Christine Blasey Ford, a Palo Alto University biostatistician and professor of psychology, is a Democrat — a Bernie Sanders contributor and an anti-Trump activist. Some 36 years ago, when she was 15, she says the 17-year-old Kavanaugh tried to force himself on her, clumsily trying to get her clothes off. A friend of Kavanaugh’s, Mark Judge, who had been watching, jumped on the two of them, allowing Ms. Ford to wriggle away and lock herself in a bathroom until the boys left.
There is no way to prove that this happened. That’s not just because Kavanaugh and Judge, the only witnesses besides Ms. Ford, vehemently deny it. Ford cannot even place it: She doesn’t recall in whose Maryland home it supposedly happened, what she did afterwards, how she got to or from the place. She never breathed a word of it at the time. When she finally told a therapist about it three decades later, notes indicate that there were four assailants — a discrepancy she blames on the therapist.
Then there is the studiously duplicitous way Democrats handled the unprovable allegation, even as they slandered Kavanaugh’s character. The ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, has known about the allegation for months, yet sat on it — all through personal interviews with Kavanaugh and hours of Senate testimony. On the eve of the committee vote on the nomination, she sprang it as an allegation she decided to refer to the FBI while maintaining the anonymity supposedly desired by the victim. As Feinstein knew would happen, Democrats began carping that the committee vote on Kavanaugh’s confirmation could not go forward until the bureau ran down the hopelessly stale, impossible-to-verify claim. Meanwhile, the determined-to-remain-anonymous Ford came very publicly forward, after scrubbing her social-media accounts and retaining Debra Katz, a notoriously partisan Democratic lawyer.
This has all the hallmarks of a set-up. If the Democrats had raised the allegation in a timely manner, its weakness would have been palpable, it would have been used for what little it’s worth in examining Kavanagh during his days of testimony, it would be put to rest as unverifiable, and we’d be on to a confirmation vote. Instead, we’re on to a delay — precisely the Democrats’ objective. They want to slow-walk Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote until after the midterms, in the hopes that they swing the Senate in their favor and have the numbers to defeat the nomination.
Republicans should not be rewarding this mendacious gambit by giving the perpetrators the start of what they calculate will be the delay they need. But alas, come Monday, the circus is scheduled to be in town: Anita Hill 2.0.
Or, as Bob Bork would say, “the end of civilization.”