Something I just put on FB.

I would like to take a moment to remember how civil liberals and Democrats have been since the announcement that Judge Kavanaugh would be President Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court. I do this hoping that people will keep this in mind as they vote for Senators and Representatives, both at the federal and state levels.

Liberals and Democrats had already decided to protest the nomination no matter who the nominee was. This is proven by various liberal groups making signs protesting each of the people Trump was thought to be considering and then distributing the one with the right name as soon as it was announced. They didn’t even know what Judge Kavanaugh’s record was, they just started protesting. Kavanaugh could have been a clone of Justice O’connor and they still would have protested just because the nomination was by President Trump.

As the nomination process progressed, Judge Kavanaugh was found to be intelligent, well read, logical, and a great legal mind. He was been endorsed by the American Bar Association, Yale Law School, as well as many Senators, private individuals and lawyers (many of whom disagree with him politically). There was nothing here that should have made anyone concerned about his ability to act fairly and constitutionally if confirmed. This was bad news for the liberals and Democrats. The only thing left to do was attack his character, which is sort of ironic since liberals argue regularly that character doesn’t matter, only results.

The character attacks started at the confirmation hearings. First, Senator Leahy accused Kavanaugh of being part of a plan where Democrat e-mails were stolen and passed to the White House under President Bush (2). I didn’t remember hearing about this so I did some research and found that a Republican staff member, Manny Miranda, had come into possession of some Democrat documents and e-mails concerning confirmation hearings that were going on at the time. The Democrats accused the person of hacking into their accounts to steal the e-mail. The staff member claimed that the e-mails were found in an unsecured file in a joint section of the LAN set up for that committee (the LAN has a Republican area where only Republican staff and Senators could access, a Democrat area with the same restrictions except for the Democrats, and a joint area where both could access). The complaint was investigated and little to no evidence of wrong doing by Mr. Miranda. In fact, Mr. Miranda went on to be investigated multiple times in the process of being granted high level security clearances. I actually go to watch this part of the hearings. Senator Leahy accused Judge Kavanaugh of taking part in, or at least covering up, the “theft” and using the documents he knew to be stolen. Next, with a flourish produced e-mails that were supposed to prove Kavanaugh’s guilt. Kavanaugh read through the e-mails and then pointed out that in the e-mails it was obvious that he did not know where the documents came from based on questions he had about them. As it became clear that the e-mails Senator Leahy were using were proving Kavanaugh’s innocence instead of guilt, the Senator suddenly stopped that line of questioning and changed to a different subject.

The next attack was from Senator Cory Booker (his Spartacus failure). Senator Booker made two charges, one against Kavanaugh and one against the Republicans. The charge against Kavanaugh was that he was a racist who pushed for racial profiling after the attacks of 9/11. Against the Republicans he charged that they were hiding evidence by not releasing e-mails that he requested. To combat the Republican’s supposed refusal to release documents and e-mails from Kavanaugh Senator Booker said he was going to release classified e-mails even though he knew he could be removed from the Senate. The problem was the e-mails that he released had already been released by the Republicans. In fact they were released very soon after he asked for them, even though it appears that he requested them late at night so that they would not have a chance to release them before the hearing. The Republicans appeared to be ready for this and had staffers working late specifically to answer these requests. The e-mails also showed that Kavanaugh had actively recommended against any sort of policies that could be seen as racists. Another character attack was bust.

Next, Senator Kamala Harris insinuated that Judge Kavanaugh had improper communications with a legal firm. When Kavanaugh denied the claims she acted as if she had documents that proved he was lying. No documents, or any other evidence of improper actions by Kavanaugh have been provided by Senator Harris, or any other Democrat. There are plenty of accusations, plenty of Democrats going on news shows and saying he is lying, but no evidence of any lying has been provided. In fact, in each case where “evidence” was provided it actually exonerated Kavanaugh. In one case, Senator Booker’s case, the Senator was shown to be purposely misleading (lying).

With all character attacks failing Senator Feinstein released a letter just days before the confirmation voting was to start that she was sent back in July. The letter accuses Judge Kavanaugh of a sexual attack (not rape as some are claiming) 36 years ago. The problem with the accusation though is that there has not been enough information provided to prove the attack. This also means there is not enough information to disprove the attack. The accusation is that 36 years ago, when a woman by the name of Ms. Ford was 15 and Kavanaugh was 17, they went to a party. Apparently there were 5 people at this party, 2 girl and 3 boys. There were no adults at the party and there was alcohol available which Ford acknowledges using and claims the others were using as well. Ms. Ford does not remember where the party was at or how she got there. She does remember Kavanaugh throwing her on a bed and jumping on her, molesting her and trying to get her clothes off while another person, whom she also named, watched. During this attack the person watching jumped on them and knocked them all off the bed allowing her to run away and lock herself in a bathroom. So far every other person said to be at the party deny the party ever occurred. Not just Kavanaugh and the person in the room, but the other two people who are not accused of any wrong doing deny the party occurred.

It is important that this be looked into now that it is known. If the accuser won’t testify, though, there is not much to investigate. People on both sides of this issue are being intellectually dishonest about an investigation and about the accusation. On the Democrat side they are calling for the FBI to investigate. First, there is not much to investigate based on what we know, and what we do know would lead us to believe the party did not occur or if it did, it was attended by different people. Next, this is not a FBI matter it is a local police matter and it is well past any statute of limitations so it is not a criminal matter. Basically, those calling for this to be investigated by the FBI know this will not happen and are trying to use that fact to accuse the Republicans and the FBI of a cover up. On the Republican side there are people asking why she did not report this to anyone and using this information to say that the woman is making this up. There is plenty of evidence of women and men being attacked and not reporting it for a multitude of reasons. The woman’s reporting or not reporting the attack is not evidence of or refutation of an attack.

Last, with no evidence of an attack other than the accusation we have many liberals and Democrats saying this is enough to disqualify Kavanaugh from consideration. It is dangerous for people to be disqualified from consideration based solely on an unprovable (and irrefutable) accusation. This does not mean that Kavanaugh, or anyone else, must be found guilty to be disqualified. The preponderance of the evidence is enough, in my opinion, to keep someone from being appointed to a position of trust and responsibility. An accusation, however, is not preponderance of evidence. To allow accusations to become the standard for disqualification is dangerous as anyone can make an accusation, even if they are not true (remember Tawana Brawley, the Duke Lacrosse Team, or the recent Rolling Stone rape story).

It is important to remember this and how politicians, specifically Democrats, are treating people. In order to keep someone they disagree with from joining the Supreme Court they are willing to destroy his character and doing everything possible to achieve their goal. Are these the kind of people that we want to be legislating? While no politician is an angel (well, Ben Carson comes close!) one party is more destructive than the other. Please remember this when you are voting.