No, the end justifies the means, and because they strongly fear that as Justice, Mr. Kavanaugh might overturn the Roe v. Wade decision, they will stop at nothing to keep him from the court. And their ethics are so variable that they believe that an accusation from 36 years ago when (if it took place at all – more on that later) both the principals were minors, is disqualifying for Mr. Kavanaugh – and yet the while-they-are-adults-and holding-public-office sexual exploits of Bill Clinton, Chris Dodd, Ted Kennedy, Robert Menendez and Keith Ellison, for example, raise barely a ripple of concern. After all, “it’s just sex,” unless you’re a Republican, and then nothing can save you – even if the incident didn’t take place at all.
The Democrats don’t care about her lack of detail, because they believe that Mr. Kavanaugh knows what happened and he had better fill in the details to their liking, or else they will not vote for him. Oh, wait – every Democrat on the committee and most of their party colleagues in the Senate already have announced they will not vote for Mr. Kavanaugh. Many had indicated that intent well before the questioning took place, so it is obvious that this is a ploy for public opinion or to hive off a few Republican votes from Mr. Kavanaugh, perhaps those of pro-abortion Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski or those of Jeff Flake and Bob Corker, stout anti-Trumpers who are not seeking reelection. If the Democrats get two, they figure to win, because, to the party’s moral shame, not one Democrat has stated that he or she is repulsed by the wretched and disgraceful attack on the character of an admirable, honest, decent man.
As for the accuser, we will not say anything to besmirch her character, for she obviously is troubled. She herself did not remember the alleged incident until 2012 (thirty years or so after she thinks it (or something) happened to her, caused by (she thinks) Mr. Kavanaugh. Mr. Kavanaugh has denied her accusations in an emphatic way, and so has the other man (she says) was in the room. Anyway, the accuser – who happens to be a Democrat activist and anti-Trump marcher – didn’t “remember” the incident until as we said, 2012. That’s when Mitt Romney’s campaign had named Mr. Kavanaugh at the top of his list of potential Supreme Court nominees. And somehow, that triggered the repressed memory of thirty years gone by – and that memory was of some aggressive behavior that did not involve removing any of the woman’s clothing or having relations with her. Nor did it involve any threats, because the woman said she (somehow) escaped and left and that was the end of it – her “assailant” did not hunt her down or threaten her or make trouble or have any type of contact with her. Guess life isn’t much like a Lifetime movie after all, because all or at least some of those things always happen when the preppy spoiled boy assaults the sweet, innocent girl – or even the not so sweet ones.
Well, if what happened in high school is the standard by which all should be judged, we are willing to bet there isn’t a Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, and maybe no Republicans either, who didn’t do something in those years involving sex, crime, drugs, alcohol, cheating, car crashes or a hundred other things. Too bad their post-high school life can’t counterbalance those sorry moments of youthful indiscretion. Oh, wait – we are assuming that those Senators actually did something to be ashamed of, and we know now that isn’t necessary, because they can be accused of anything, even something they did not do, and if they can’t prove that they did not do it, they must therefore be guilty, and disqualified for anything – unless they favor abortion on demand, and then all is erased.
The accuser’s charges are unprovable, either way. Her memory is so unclear and so recent and her political motives are so apparent that she cannot prove it happened at all, and of course, Mr. Kavanaugh, who will not be provided with places, dates, times and circumstances, will not therefore be able to prove it didn’t happen, and, by the logic of the modern Democratic party, he must therefore be guilty. There is nothing wrong with answering legitimate questions, but there is nothing right about having to answer illegitimate ones. We don't know what the word is when someone's innocence and fitness for office depends on his ability to disprove something that never happened, something for which no solid details are provided, in a politically-charged atmosphere. but let's call it being "Kavanaughed." -- JDS