The Standard | Standard
So now we have it. DNC
Deputy chair and Minnesota Attorney General candidate Keith Ellison has two 'believable' accusations (to borrow a term from the Kavanaugh hearings) of violent
abuse from former girlfriends. In addition, Cory Booker has been 'believably' accused of sexually attacking a man in a restroom. Booker's 'serious' (to borrow another term from the Democratic handbook) charges are
doubly investigation-worthy - at least by the new Democratic standards - because they are both anonymous and uncorroborated. [1]With the incessant chant that 'all claims must be taken seriously' still ringing in their ears, the Democrats are tenaciously following the same standards they deployed against Brett Kavanaugh. Armed with their newly developed Judiciary Committee hearing standards, these Dems are unanimously clamoring that all three 'survivors are to be believed' and insisting that the denials of the accused only lend credibility to their accusers. Thus, they are noisily demanding that both men must cease their campaigns and/or step down from their current elected positions to allow the FBI and undetermined and unlimited time to conduct at least 6 or 7 investigations - as well as insisting that both men must decisively disprove each and every allegation leveled against them - sometime after the elections are over.
Okay, well actually - they are predictably not doing any of those things. Those are the standards they insist on for Republicans. They do not apply them to themselves. Accusations against their own are still largely to be ignored.
The beauty of being a Democrat in 2018 is that you no longer have to be tethered to standards of consistency or even fairness. Nor is this post-modern, Alinskyite, Democrat party any longer bound by outdated standards of logic or objectivity. Having thrown aside, for political advantage, any semblance of fealty to the presumption of innocence and due process, the lunatic left has replaced them with judicial concepts dated from the Spanish Inquisition and the French Revolution. They now march out before the nearest camera, like modern-day Robespierres, accusing and denouncing their political adversaries in the most hyperbolic language, demanding their exile, and sentencing them to political execution.
Yet, they are completely oblivious to - or deliberately ignoring - their double standard. For them, it's still "justice for me, but not for thee." If you doubt that, or if you think I am just a Republican partisan, listen to the conclusion from the Minnesota Democrat (DFL) Party's investigation/probe of their candidate for Attorney General and Deputy Chair of the Democratic National Committee, Keith Ellison. According to the report prepared by Susan Ellensted, the Democratic lawyer hired by the MN DFL party to investigate the claims against Ellison, "an allegation standing alone is not necessarily sufficient to conclude that conduct occurred. [2]
This is the the reasonable standard Democrats use for their own, however, when Republicans (or Republican nominees such as Justice Kavanaugh) are accused, reasonableness ends and the hysterics begin. No matter how unlikely the accusation, how incredible the claims, despite a complete lack of any evidence or corroboration - all semblance of reasonableness is tossed aside so the opposition can be destroyed.
The Standard for Credibility
Having abandoned the traditional judicial standards of the rule of law, due process, and presumption of innocence, this new and radicalized Democrat party has little left to cling to except hyperbole, hysterics, and mob rule to try to destroy a Supreme Court candidate (or any other political opponent) with impeccable credentials and character. In their quest for power, they are seemingly quite happy to take a chapter from the Salem Witch trials: there is no tactic too low, nothing too desperate, and nothing to lose.
What is really sad about it is that they don't care... not about truth, our form of government, the Constitution, or women. All those became but casualties of battle in their lust for control.
So for what its worth, I did not find Dr. Christine Blasey Ford's testimony the least bit credible. Notwithstanding the timing of her disclosure or the circumstances by which her handlers attempted to manipulate the confirmation process, her testimony was neither believable nor compelling - and came nowhere near legal standards. Emotional - yes. Sincere - perhaps. But that is not the same as credibility.
Unfortunately for the post-modern Democrats still trying to overturn the outcome of the 2016 election, credibility requires more than wild accusations. We dare not confuse energy, empathy, sincerity with credibility. As the Hoover Institution's Victor Davis Hanson pointed out, "Credibility is established by evidence, cross-examination, and testimony." [3]
Neither her nor her handlers produced a shred of evidence. Her testimony withered under cross-examination. She could garner not a single person to collaborate her story. [4]
Don't be deceived - the 3-ring circus and sideshows that Diane Feinstein, Chuckie Schumer and the Senate Democrats orchestrated for the Judiciary Committee was never about justice. It was never at getting to the truth. It was never about respecting women.
Rather, it was a desperate - and Constitutionally reckless - attempt to seize power and exact revenge. It was a 'two-fer' for the Dems - it gave them the opportunity to destroy a political enemy's credibility while bolstering their chits with their radical feminist and leftist-fringe demographics.
They used the issue of sexual harassment and abuse as a simple means to an end - a wicked end - to overturn the results of the 2016 election. In this quest for power, minorities and women are actually just pawns to be manipulated in a cynical game... for if such hysterical hyperbole and fantastic claims which stretch all credibility are to be given serious consideration, as they insist, then the truly credible claims will most certainly be diminished.
In going down this road, they not only poison the political atmosphere, but delegitimize every credible claim. All legitimate claims of women who have truly been mistreated and abused are subsequently undermined. Make no mistake, our system of justice has been diminished as a result.
[1] https://citizentruth.org/gay-man-accuses-sen-cory-booker-of-sexual-assault-in-restroom/
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Eee4aFavPGM3KVk5Wi9qQzveyeF8Yre6/view
[2] http://www.startribune.com/dfl-will-refer-ellison-allegation-to-law-enforcement-after-internal-investigation-can-t-substantiate/494828181/
[3] "Dr. Ford was sincere and empathetic. But that did not translate into being credible. Credibility is established by evidence, cross-examination, and testimony..." (Victor David Hanson as a guest on Tucker Carlson Live on 10/02/2018)
[4] The 414 page post-hearing Judiciary Committee report on the Kavanaugh allegations, released on November 2, 2018, stated that they could find "No witness who could provide any verifiable evidence to suport any of the allegations." (Fox News)
For those who have intentionally tried to put this embarrassing episode of our nation's history behind them, I remind you of the following... her story was:
- vague - by her own admission, she couldn't say when or where the alleged event occurred
- inconsistent - her descriptions of the event was continually evolving
- uncorroborated - none of the witnesses she named, including her 'life-long friend' confirmed her story. One even denied knowing Kavanaugh
- contradictory - she somehow feared flying to D.C, but not to exotic vacation destinations
For analysis of the Rachel Mitchel memo - https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/rachel-mitchell-expertly-eviscerates-the-case-against-kavanaugh/2018/10/02/ec1ff7c4-c66d-11e8-9b1c-a90f1daae309_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.bf35f23efaf8
UPDATE: On November 6, 2018, Keith Ellison defeated Doug Wardlow 49% to 45%. ( https://electionresults.sos.state.mn.us/Results/AttorneyGeneral/115?id=st&officeInElectionId=17118 )
