The Patriot Post® · Judging Kavanaugh — Feinstein's 'Guilty Until Proven Innocent' Strategy
“Those gentlemen, who will be elected senators, will fix themselves in the federal town, and become citizens of that town more than of your state.” —George Mason (1788)
On Monday, we celebrated Constitution Day, the 231st anniversary of the signing of our Constitution at the Philadelphia Convention in 1787. That day also marked the 22nd anniversary of The Patriot Post — the first and thus oldest news digest on the Internet.
Unfortunately, it has been a week when our Constitution and the Liberty it enshrines have been subject to yet another ludicrous assault. This attack came, of course, from Democrat Party leaders, and it went far beyond their usual relentless grind to undermine constitutional Rule of Law and to subordinate it with their so-called “living constitution.”
In my column two weeks ago, “Obstruction of Justice: The Demos’ Kavanaugh Blockade,” I noted, “The left-leaning (to put it kindly) American Bar Association awarded Judge Brett Kavanaugh its highest endorsement, a unanimous ‘Well-Qualified’ rating. According to ABA guidelines, ‘The rating of "Well Qualified” is reserved for those found to merit the Committee’s strongest affirmative endorsement.’“
I wrote further, "This endorsement used to be the gold standard for Democrats considering Republican judicial nominees for the Supreme Court. So what’s the holdup on Donald Trump’s Kavanaugh nomination to SCOTUS? He has already been through six intense and exhaustive FBI background investigations associated with judicial and presidential appointments between 1993 to 2018, and congressional hearings for previous federal judicial appointments, including his nomination to the second highest court in the land.”
The answer was obvious:
First, the election of Donald Trump and the resulting epidemic of Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Second, a deep sense of remorse by Democrats that they killed the filibuster for judicial nominations in 2013 to clear the way for a slate of Barack Obama’s far-left nominees to the federal bench, and inadvertently cleared the way for the appointment of Trump’s constitutional constructionist judges to the court – those who will abide by their oaths “to support and defend” our Constitution rather than twist it into whatever shape the Democrats please.
The result is the devolution of Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing into a Demo-demented slander fest.
Keep in mind, it was Trump’s commitment to nominate law-abiding judges to SCOTUS, which accounted for much of his support in 2016. He delivered on that promise in 2017 with the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch. But the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy this year, who has been a pivotal fifth vote on the Supreme Court, set up an epic battle, and thrust Democrats into the most strident partisan assault on the judicial nominating process in our nation’s history.
Even their leftmost justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, laments the patent partisanship in the Kavanaugh hearings: “The [Justice Antonin Scalia] vote was unanimous. Every Democrat and every Republican voted for him. But that’s the way it should be, instead of what it’s become, which is a highly partisan show. … I wish I could wave a magic wand and have it go back to … the way it was.” She noted the vote on her own confirmation was 96 to 3, despite her having spent “10 years of my life litigating cases under the auspices of the ACLU.”
So now, after six separate FBI background checks for Kavanaugh, after Senate Democrats had more time to review this nominee’s background than virtually any SCOTUS nominee, after hundreds of thousands of background documents were released for their review (despite the “Spartacus” claims), after 65 individual meetings with senators, after his written answers to 1,278 follow-up questions, and after more than 30 hours of public testimony, let me ask again: “So what’s the holdup on Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination?”
In short, the current blockade is a collusion and obstruction strategy cooked up by the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, five-term California Sen. Dianne Feinstein. (Hypocrisy Alert: These spurious charges are coming from the Party of serial sexual assailant Bill Clinton and his chief defender Hillary Clinton, who now want the FBI to investigate allegations from 36 years ago… Somebody get Juanita Broaddrick and his other victims on the line…)
Two months ago (according to her recollection), Feinstein claims she received a letter from one Christine Blasey Ford, a leftist, pro-abortion, Bernie Sanders-supporting California college professor, who alleged that she had been subject to some kind of assault, maybe in the summer of 1982, by then-17 year old Brett Kavanaugh.
Coinciding with Feinstein’s receipt of that letter, there was a conference call to Democrats about the Kavanaugh nomination from leftist strategist Ricki Seidman (who is now one of Ford’s “advisors”). In that conference call, Seidman stated, “Over the coming days and weeks there will be a strategy that will emerge, and I think it’s possible that that strategy might ultimately defeat the [Kavanaugh].”
According to Ford, she was an inebriated 15-year-old at the time of the incident, which occurred at a party location she can’t recall, nor can she remember how she got to or departed the party house. Ford says she mentioned the incident to a therapist back in 2012, but according to the therapist’s records, Ford mentioned no names but insisted there were four boys involved. Ford later claimed that only Kavanaugh’s friend Mark Judge was present, but he has categorically denied any knowledge of this incident.
Last weekend she claimed another student, Patrick Smyth, was also present. Today, he sent a letter to the Judicial Committee declaring, “I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh. Personally speaking, I have known Brett Kavanaugh since high school and I know him to be a person of great integrity, a great friend, and I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh towards women.”
Finally Ford claimed that her lifelong friend Leland Ingham Keyser, had witnessed the incident. But even she is denying any knowledge of the incident. “Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford,” lawyer Howard J. Walsh said in a statement sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Of course, Ford’s “forgotten” details make it easier for Feinstein to frame Kavanaugh as “guilty until proven innocent” in the court of public opinion.
For his part, Judge Kavanaugh has categorically denied the allegations: “This alleged event from 35 years ago did not happen. … These [spurious allegations] debase our public discourse. But they are also a threat to any man or woman who wishes to serve our country. Such grotesque and obvious character assassination—if allowed to succeed—will dissuade competent and good people of all political persuasions from public service. As I told the committee during my hearing, a federal judge must be independent, not swayed by public or political pressure. That is the kind of judge I will always be. I will not be intimidated into withdrawing from this process. The coordinated effort to destroy my good name will not drive me out. The vile threats of violence against my family will not drive me out. The last-minute character assassination will not succeed.
A letter signed by 65 female colleagues and lifelong friends attesting to his sterling character was sent to the Judiciary Committee members. In addition, two women who dated Kavanaugh during the period of the alleged assault have also said the allegations are utterly inconsistent with his character, noting he was "kind and polite and respectful” and a “stand-up guy, full of integrity” who “treated no one with disrespect.”
The only thing Kavanaugh is guilty of is being a constitutional constructionist who will abide by his oath of office.
Trump is standing firm behind his nominee, and is calling the Demo’s bluff: “Judge Brett Kavanaugh is a fine man, with an impeccable reputation, who is under assault by radical left wing politicians who don’t want to know the answers, they just want to destroy and delay. Facts don’t matter. I go through this with them every single day in D.C. … I have no doubt that, if the attack on Dr. Ford was as bad as she says, charges would have been immediately filed with local law enforcement authorities by either her or her loving parents. I ask that she bring those filings forward so that we can learn date, time, and place!”
But the Leftmedia insists that Ford’s account must be true because she has “passed” a polygraph test. At best, that is an indication that Ford believes her own story. But who paid for it? And who administered it? And what questions were asked? And how were they formulated?
The MSM seized on a report by one of Ford’s former classmates, Cristina King Miranda, who claimed this week in a now-deleted social media post, “I did not know [Ford] personally but I remember her. This incident did happen.” Once she found out she would be required to testify under oath, Miranda recanted that assertion, saying, “That it happened or not, I have no idea. I can’t say that it did or didn’t.”
When Feinstein was asked why she sat on this “bombshell” letter for months and why she’d failed to even mention it to Kavanaugh during her one-on-one meetings with him prior to the Senate hearings, instead turning it over to the FBI just last Thursday, she claimed, “I don’t know; I’ll have to look back and see.” Later she claimed that it was because Ford “asked that it be confidential.” After repeated requests, she finally provide a copy of that letter to the judiciary committee.
Are you a believer yet?
On Monday, Democrats demanded an open hearing for Ford, so Republicans granted an open or closed hearing next Monday, whichever Ford preferred. According to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA), “Immediately after learning of Dr. Ford’s identity from news reports Sunday, committee staff started working to gather facts related to her claims. We’ve offered Dr. Ford the opportunity to share her story with the committee, as her attorney said she was willing to do. We offered her a public or a private hearing as well as staff-led interviews, whichever makes her most comfortable.”
Grassley notes that attempts to reach Ford through her attorney have gone unanswered: “Our committee staff has attempted to contact you directly by phone and email several times to schedule a call at a time convenient for you and your client we have thus far not heard back from you with regard to that request.”
By Tuesday, Feinstein and Ford’s handlers were, predictably, erecting obstacles to that hearing — again all designed to obstruct and delay. Rather than accept Grassley’s invitation, Ford’s lawyer insisted that would only happen after “a fair proceeding,” insisting the FBI would first have to conduct a “full investigation” into the 35-year-old accusation, the fundamental details of which her client can’t even remember. Of course, the FBI has no jurisdiction in this matter.
But no matter that! According to Sen. Kristen Gillibrand (D-NY): “Denying Dr. Ford an FBI investigation is silencing her. Forcing her into a sham hearing is silencing her. … Kavanaugh has not asked for the FBI to review these claims. Is that the reaction of an innocent person. It is not.”
Responding to Gillibrand’s assertions, House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-SC), “There is a presumption of innocence and you do not have to prove your innocence. … Judge Kavanaugh does not have the burden of proving his innocence. … The government has the burden of proof in a criminal case. … The FBI has no jurisdiction in this matter.”
Demo leader and arch-obstructionist Chuck Schumer (D-NY) insisted that requiring the alleged victim to testify before a full FBI investigation “is simply inadequate, unfair, wrong, and designed not to get the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”
Huh? This entire charade has been specifically “designed not to get the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”
For the record, recall that in the nomination hearings for Clarence Thomas, Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) rebuffed committee calls for an FBI investigation into Anita Hill’s spurious accusations: “The next person that refers to an FBI report as being worth anything obviously doesn’t understand anything. The FBI explicitly does not, in this or any other case, reach a conclusion. Period. The reason why we cannot rely on the FBI report – you wouldn’t like it if we did – is because it is inconclusive. They say ‘He said, she said, and they said.’ Period. So when people are waving FBI report before you, understand they do not, they do not, they do not reach conclusions.”
Feinstein, Schumer, Gillibrand and their colluding Demos are now protesting that Ford is being rushed to testify. So Ford told her story to the Washington post but won’t tell her story under oath to the Senate committee?
Fact is, Feinstein and Schumer have had control of this timeline for at least two months. They timed Ford’s 13th hour allegation to be “leaked” as Kavanaugh’s Senate hearings closed. And for the record, the timeline requested for Ford’s testimony is precisely the same timeline that then-Sen. Joe Biden set up for Anita Hill’s 13th hour slanderous allegations against Clarence Thomas.
Regarding Ford’s “conditions” for her testimony, noted Georgetown law professor Jonathan Turley (a Democrat) observes: “Ford’s demand is, to put it simply, out of line… There is no precedent for a quid pro quo demand for testimony by a witness. Ford has every right to expect to be heard… She does not have the right to set conditions before testifying under oath.”
Hawaii’s junior Demo-Sen. Maize Hirono (D-HI) is leading the #MeToo chorus, insisting, “Women like Dr. Ford…need to be believed. They need to be believed. I just want to say to the men of this country just shut up and step up. Do the right thing for a change.” Others are echoing her “I believe her” mantra.
When Hirono was asked, “Doesn’t Kavanaugh have the same presumption of innocence as anyone else in America?” she responded, “I put his denial in the context of everything I know about him… His credibility is already very questionable in my mind and in the minds of a lot of my fellow judiciary committee members, the, um Democrats.”
But as Turley notes further, “Democrats have insisted Ford has a ‘right to be believed.’ There are basic principles of due process that establish a right to be heard, not a right to be believed.” And responding to Hirono’s refusal to answer the question about “presumption of innocence,” Turley noted, “What’s really troubling is that it’s an easy answer. The answer is, ‘Of course. In any nation which values the Rule of Law there is a presumption of innocence.’ The fact that she had to demur on that question is quite troubling.”
The Demos know there is no due process in the court public opinion, which is precisely why Feinstein and her Demo-gogues want to cast it there.
Likewise, Democrat Harvard law professor Allen Dershowitz protests: “The most disturbing thing is these [Democrats] I know and respect, are saying ‘I believe her!’ You’ve never met her. You don’t know anything about her. Are women born with a special gene for telling the truth and men with a special gene for lying? … I want to hear both sides of the story and make a determination. That’s what the American system of justice is all about.”
But Schumer has doubled down, declaring, “This is standard operating procedure. There is no presumption of innocence…”
And Hirono is now spinning this yarn: “Look, we’re not in a court of law. We’re actually in a court of credibility…” Got that.
Predictably, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) insists the Kavanaugh nomination “should be withdrawn.” According to Blumenthal, “This nomination will not only cast a shadow over Judge Kavanaugh … it will also stain the United States Supreme Court irreparably.” No, it is Feinstein’s charade that is casting shadows and stains. It is likely that some of the shadow will fall on Feinstein and the Democrats she has enlisted to participate in this face, and the stain will be on the United States Senate.
Blumenthal also got on the “guilty until proven innocent” train: “[These charges] are serious and credible, and now the person with the most knowledge about them, namely Judge Brett Kavanaugh has a responsibility to come forward with evidence to rebut them.”
So Kavanaugh is “the person with the most knowledge” about the charges who must prove his innocence?
On Ford’s initial refusal to testify, Grassley responded, “It raises the question: Do they want to have the hearing or not?” He noted that the FBI “considers the matter closed.” Indeed, after all her witnesses have denied any knowledge of the allegations, will Ford even show up to testify?
On Ford’s subsequent efforts to dictate the terms of her testimony included that Judge Kavanaugh testify before her.
Dershowitz says Ford’s demand is “the most absurd, anti-due process, anti-American concept.” He added, “Every civil libertarian in the country, liberal, conservative, Republican, Democrat, led by the Civil Libertarian Union should be outraged… It is insane to ask an accused person to deny the accusation before he has heard the accusation being made and cross-examined.”
Again, this is all scripted and the Democrats are just trying to run out the clock. The two Republican senators who initially said the nomination vote should be postponed until Ford testified, Bob Corker (R-TN) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ), are now insisting it proceed.
As for the veracity of Ford’s claims, Feinstein now says, “I can’t say that everything is truthful. I don’t know.” Democrats aren’t interested in what’s “truthful” as long as there’s still a chance to kill the Kavanaugh nomination.
Let’s review: The alleged “leak” about Ford’s accusation was scripted by Feinstein to coincide with the conclusion of the Kavanaugh hearings. Ford’s subsequent interview by The Washington Post was scripted by Feinstein and Ford. Likewise they scripted Ford’s refusal to testify prior to a “full FBI investigation.”
And recall, Feinstein has an ulterior motive. After the California Democrat Party endorsed her November opponent, socialist Kevin de León, the 85-year-old Feinstein is desperately endeavoring to ensure her victory in November.
This was a brilliantly timed character assassination designed to derail Kavanaugh’s nomination if, as estimated, Ford’s allegations elicit enough female voter outrage, enough “toxic femininity” among the MeToo mob and their collateral sympathizers, in the swing states of squishy Republican senators Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, thus compelling them to vote against Kavanaugh, or forcing Kavanaugh or Trump to withdraw the nomination.
Ultimately, the Democrat delay strategy is based on the assumption of retaking the Senate in the midterms, at which point the plan, as Demo-Sen. Hirono outlined, is to then keep the seat vacant until 2020. “The world does not come to an end because we don’t fill all of the nominees,” declared Hirono, who added that men on the Judiciary Committee should “just shut up.”
In other words, Republicans best get this nomination through next week, or they risk not filling the seat.
Feinstein’s “#MeToo” farce is the latest manifestation of the Democrats’ 2018 midterm election alleged assault strategy.
Unlike all the leftists who’ve been outed recently as serial sexual abusers, there’s been no such pattern with Kavanaugh — just this single out-of-left-field allegation.
Political analyst David French notes, “Feinstein’s conduct raises multiple questions. If the allegations are serious, why sit on them since July? Also, if the allegations are serious, why refer them to law enforcement just now? And why not ask Kavanaugh about the claims, even in a closed session? While we don’t know the contents of the letter, Feinstein has not behaved like a person in possession of blockbuster revelations. Instead, she’s behaving like a person engaged in a vicious smear.”
Indeed, even the hard-left San Francisco Chronicle is questioning the timing of Feinstein’s political ruse, noting her “treatment of a more than 3-decade-old sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was unfair all around. It was unfair to Kavanaugh, unfair to his accuser and unfair to Feinstein’s colleagues — Democrats and Republicans alike — on the Senate Judiciary Committee.”
But Feinstein knows that adjudicating 36-year-old unsubstantiated and uncorroborated allegations in the court of public opinion will, effectively, frame Kavanaugh as “guilty until proven innocent.” The accusations will, as was the case with late accusations against Justice Clarence Thomas, follow Kavanaugh to his grave, whether appointed or not.
The Left has adopted “the ends justify the means” in all things political. It is disgraceful and it will backfire with some Democrats who have a modicum of conscience and decency. They are wantonly using these coordinated, scripted attacks to destroy a good man, and by extension, his wife Ashley and their daughters. They are now enduring death threats. Typical of the messages being sent to Ashley are these, now being investigated by the U.S. Marshalls: “May you, your husband and your kids burn in hell.” And: “Hi, Ashley, tell your husband he should put a bullet in his … skull.”
These salacious, uncorroborated and unsubstantiated claims, as scripted by Feinstein, et al., will inevitably undermine the credibility of women who have the courage to come forward with legitimate claims against those who have actually assaulted them.
While the current Democrat attack on our Constitution and due process is not as egregious as that attempted by their predecessor, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who attempted to expand the number of justices in order to pack SCOTUS with those who would support his extra-constitutional policies, what Feinstein and company are doing now is no less arrogant and dangerous to Liberty.
Ford’s credibility notwithstanding, it is Feinstein and her colluders who have lost ALL credibility.
In summary, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) concluded: “You’ve watched the fight. You’ve watched the tactics. But here’s what I want to tell you: In the very near future, Judge Kavanaugh will be on the United States Supreme Court. Don’t get rattled by all of this. We’re gonna plow right through it and do our job.”
Hypocrisy Footnote 1: On the subject of things “unfair”: At the same time Democrats are treating the incredible Ford accusation as “credible,” they’re completely ignoring recent credible accusations against DNC Deputy Chair Keith Ellison by his recent former girlfriend, Karen Monahan, and her son — accusations that purportedly include videotaped evidence.
When she was asked if Democrats had investigated her claims of assault by Ellison and given her a fair hearing, she responded, “No. … I’ve been smeared, threatened, isolated from my own party. I provided medical records from 2017, stating on two different Dr. visits, I told them about the abuse and who did it. My therapist released records stating I have been dealing and healing from the abuse.”
She added, “Four people, including my supervisor at the time, stated that I came to them after and shared the exact story I shared publicly, I shared multiple texts between me and Keith, where I discuss the abuse with him and much more. As I said before, I knew I wouldn’t be believed.”
Hypocrisy Footnote 2: After Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) had his “Spartacus moment” during the judiciary hearings, recall that he revealed in a college news paper, that he had sexually groped an intoxicated 15-year old girl.
Hypocrisy Footnote 3: Last but not least, let’s review what Ford’s lawyer, Demo activist Debra Katz, had to say about a few other notable sexual assault cases.
After Bill Clinton propositioned a subordinate employee, Paula Jones, exposing himself and insisting on sex, responding to Jones’ testimony Katz concluded, “Paula Jones’ suit is very, very, very weak. She’s alleged one incident that took place in a hotel room that, by her own testimony, lasted 10 to 12 minutes. She suffered no repercussions in the workplace.” (Jones was awarded $850,000)
More recently regarding Demo Sen. Al Franken and his disrespectful behavior, Katz declared, “The context is relevant. He did not do this as a member of the U.S. Senate. He did this in his capacity as someone who was still functioning as an entertainer.”
No double standard here. Move along.
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Pro Deo et Libertate — 1776