The Democrat hits on Judge Brett Kavanaugh keep coming, and they must not go unchallenged. It is not an exaggeration to say that the future of the GOP, the notion of due process in the confirmation process, and perhaps the country as a whole are at stake. The near-term target audience is the handful of wavering GOP senators, but longer term, the audience is really the voting public. Democrats will not stop the “do whatever it takes regardless of who gets hurt” approach to regaining power.

As predicted, the new FBI probe is just part of the Democrats’ delay tactics, and they have tripled down on more of the same. First, in the epitome of circular logic, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) cooked the books on Kavanaugh and betrayed Christine Ford with her last-minute ambush. When Kavanaugh responded with perfectly legitimate outrage, Feinstein subsequently claimed he doesn’t have the temperament to be on the Court. Then she made public a letter she sent to the American Bar Association urging it to withdraw its endorsement for the same reason. There is a huge difference between reacting to personal accusations of serious crimes and how one acts in presiding over a court case. If you want to confirm temperament, check out the latter. There are only 300 examples for all to see.

Another Democrat senator is repeating her claim that Kavanaugh cannot be confirmed simply because the guy who nominated him is an illegitimate president. But even if Kavanaugh is confirmed, he will be severely compromised. As a sex offender, he will have to recuse himself on any case involving women. And as a GOP operative, the same will apply to any case involving the GOP or politics. No one would risk having him around their grade-school daughters, so there goes his basketball coaching career. Moreover, any university that relies on federal funding will think twice about employing him, so there goes his teaching gigs.

But that’s not the worst of it. Democrats are now asking the FBI to look into accusations that he lied to the Senate. Don’t be surprised to see that theme expanded to include things like how many “Fs” his high-school pal stuttered before dropping the full F-bomb. In pursuit of this line of attack, Democrats have also surfaced a college professor who says he was Kavanaugh’s drinking buddy at Yale and who claims he lied to the Senate about the extent of his drinking and whether he was a “belligerent drunk.” Lest we forget, lying under oath not only would disqualify him from the Supreme Court but also would cost him his current position and his law license, not to mention potential prison time.

What constitutes “heavy drinking” or “belligerence”? What corroborating evidence exists? Or do we have yet another Democrat who sees it as his “civic duty” to come forward now and interpret all of this for us? And what about the claims that Kavanaugh “passed out” after drinking too much, which implies he might have not been able to remember things he did while drunk? (Kavanaugh denies this.) Ironically, that would probably help Kavanaugh, since it’s difficult to assault someone when you are asleep. But what does “passed out” after drinking mean? Have you ever fallen asleep on the couch watching Monday Night Football after having a couple beers at dinner? When asked about that in the hearings, Kavanaugh seemed vague because he was trying to provide a “lawyerly” answer, taking the question literally, not as the setup it was. He came across as evasive, which reflected more the impossibility of coming up with an accurate, complete answer, not lying.

And now Democrats have trotted out that paragon of honesty and integrity, Saint James Comey. In a new op-ed, Comey first makes it clear to his former colleagues at the FBI now involved in the new probe that Trump hates them and that Kavanaugh is Trump’s guy. He then goes on to blast the limited nature of the new FBI probe and urges that the review take as long as is necessary and digs into every accusation, including those that Kavanaugh lied.

But be careful what you ask for, because the main event in the probe is the evidence and the credibility of each side of the “he said, she said” duel. The woman prosecutor who did the questioning has just written a devastating summation of Ford’s testimony, citing numerous holes, inconsistencies, missing documentation, and communications among Ford and the various Democrat operatives that have not been produced.

I would have loved to have seen a more aggressive cross-examination at the hearing, but that was not the GOP strategy. And since the audience primarily consists of GOP senators for now, the summary is likely the better vehicle. Any further probe into Ford’s credibility would certainly go beyond the midterms and play into Democrat hands, but if the GOP doesn’t call the question, further digging into these items would likely support the claim that Democrats orchestrated the whole thing and didn’t give a whit for the impact on Ford.

This is just the beginning for Democrats, but they have already overplayed their hand. It bears repeating that no FBI probe will be good enough for them, and at some point before November the GOP must simply call the question. Only those GOP senators on the fence in the next week, and the voters in the next five weeks, can bring this insanity to an end.