Democrats sure know how to script a thorough character assassination.

On Sunday, Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) announced a “deal” with Christine Blasey Ford to testify before the Senate this Thursday regarding her spurious allegations that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh attempted to sexually assault her when she was an intoxicated 15-year-old approximately 36 years ago — but so inebriated was she that the exact time, place, and circumstances are unclear. That’s a perfect setup for Democrats to maintain that Judge Kavanaugh is “guilty until proven innocent.”

However, by Sunday evening, all four of those whom Ford alleged had witnessed her assault by Kavanaugh have now denied her allegations, including last but certainly not least her lifelong friend Leland Ingham Keyser.

In a letter from Keyser’s attorney, Howard J. Walsh, to the Judiciary Committee, he makes clear, “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.”

Predictably, once Ford’s hearing had been set but her final witness failed to corroborate any details of her allegations, the Party of serial sexual assailant Bill Clinton and his chief defender Hillary Clinton, by way of their Leftmedia outlets, rolled out a second assault accusation. Apparently, Democrats delayed Ford’s testimony in part to wait for the second story to break so Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), puppet master of this whole contemptible charade, could demand “an immediate postponement of any further proceedings related to the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh.” That is Democrats’ endgame, after all. The delays will likely keep Kavanaugh from joining the Court before the beginning of its term on October 1st.

The second allegation was reported by The New Yorker’s Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer. The pair also broke Ford’s allegation without naming her, and Farrow authored the original #MeToo story blockbuster about Harvey Weinstein. Yet right off the bat, this latest scoop falls flat. For one thing, the authors don’t even get to the allegation until they tell us in the first paragraph that Democrats are taking it “very seriously.”

Did someone say “collusion”?

Indeed, Farrow says the accuser “came forward because Senate Democrats came looking for this claim.” You don’t say.

Deborah Ramirez, a classmate of Kavanaugh’s at Yale and a registered Democrat, “was at first hesitant to speak publicly, partly because her memories contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident,” The New Yorker tells us. Fair enough. Hesitance doesn’t prove or disprove anything, as lots of women are afraid to report legitimate sexual assault, especially if they were too drunk to truly consent, fully function, or remember details.

But the report continues, “In her initial conversations with The New Yorker, she was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty. After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney [emphasis added], Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections to say that she remembers Kavanaugh had exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away. Ramirez is now calling for the F.B.I. to investigate Kavanaugh’s role in the incident. ‘I would think an F.B.I. investigation would be warranted,’ she said.”

As with Ford’s allegation, the FBI has no jurisdiction to investigate and has already conducted multiple, thorough background checks on Kavanaugh.

The report also cites an unidentified student who wasn’t at the party but says another student told him about an incident vaguely resembling the accusation at the time. Counter to that flimsy hearsay, “The New Yorker has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party.” Moreover, six witnesses reached by The New Yorker — including Ramirez’s best friend — “disputed Ramirez’s account of events.”

Yes, these unbelievably glaring weaknesses appear in a story hit piece meant to ruin Kavanaugh’s career.

Unfortunately for the “journalistic integrity” of The New Yorker, the newspaper with the slogan “All the News Fit to Print,” The New York Times, refused to print the absurd Ramirez allegation. The Times attempted to vet the latest claims and found them unsubstantiated, noting deep in its own Kavanaugh report: “[We] interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge. Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.”

For his part, Kavanaugh said in a statement, “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.”

So to sum up, there’s as much corroboration for Ramirez’s story as there was for Ford’s — precisely none.

Yet Democrats are wantonly using Feinstein’s coordinated, scripted attacks to destroy a man of high character and integrity, and by extension his wife and daughters, who are now enduring death threats. Typical of the messages being sent to Ashley Kavanaugh 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.”

Furthermore, as Mark Alexander has noted, “These salacious, uncorroborated, and unsubstantiated claims, politically scripted by Feinstein and company, will inevitably undermine the credibility of women who have the courage to come forward with legitimate claims against those who have actually assaulted them.”

By way of their “ends justify the means” posture in all things political, Democrats are leaving a Category 5 wake of destruction in their crusade to destroy our Constitution. For any American who possess a modicum of conscience and decency, this process can only be viewed as a disgraceful assault on our Republic.

(Updated.)