Judging Kavanaugh — Feinstein's 'guilty until proven innocent' strategy
By Mark Alexander
Last Monday, we celebrated Constitution Day, the 231st anniversary of the signing of our Constitution at the Philadelphia Convention in 1787. Unfortunately, it was 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 a 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 — a nominee who has already been through six intense and exhaustive FBI background investigations associated with high-level judicial and presidential appointments between 1993 to 2018, including congressional hearings for previous federal judicial appointments?"
The answer is obvious:
1) The election of Donald Trump; 2) the resulting epidemic of Trump Derangement Syndrome; 3) pandering and political theater, Democrat Party style; and 4) 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.
On that last point, Democrats 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.
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 of 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 holdup now is a collusion and obstruction strategy cooked up by the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, five-term California Sen. Dianne Feinstein.
Two months ago (according to her recollection), Feinstein says 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 Brett Kavanaugh, who would have been 17 years old at the time. By Ford's account, she was an inebriated 15-year-old, and the incident took place at a party location she can't recall, nor can she remember how she got to or departed the party.
Ford says she mentioned the incident to a therapist back in 2012. According to the therapist's records, Ford mentioned no names and 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 issued 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."
Of course, Ford's "forgotten" details make it easier for Feinstein to frame Kavanaugh as "guilty until proven innocent."
For his part, Judge Kavanaugh has categorically denied the allegations, and he has produced a letter signed by 65 female colleagues and lifelong friends attesting to his sterling character. 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.
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?
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."
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."
By Tuesday, Democrats 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.
Demo leader and arch-obstructionist Chuck Schumer (D-NY) insisted that requiring the alleged victim to testify before a full investigation "is simply inadequate, unfair, wrong, and designed not to get the whole truth and nothing but the truth."
Huh? For the record, this entire episode has been specifically "designed not to get the whole truth and nothing but the truth."
On Ford's 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" and that next Monday's hearing will go forward with or without Ford.
Of course, 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 me be clear: 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 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 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 Sen. Maize Hirono (D-HI) 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.
Mark Alexander is the executive editor of the Patriot Post.