Kavanaugh is having his reputation publicly destroyed over an unverified 36-year-old claim, why should another domestic abuse case — with medical records — get a pass?
Your team is solidly on record that the victim must be believed, and that the accused’s protests of innocence don’t matter a damn, right?
Is that true of everybody? Or have you just turned that into a political weapon to wield against Republicans? Because there is a significant player up for election right now, and if they really are serious about their outrage, his nomination should get pulled. Let’s have a look.
Here is Congressman Keith Ellision (D) saying of his accuser…
… “In this political environment, I don’t know what somebody might cook up” …
Interesting choice of words by someone protesting his innocence. Do you suppose any of his friends among the Democrats would accept that very same logic and soften their insistence that everyone ‘believe’ Kavanaugh’s accuser?
Or should the public play the same kind of hardball with your situation that partisan Democrats in the Senate and Media have been with the Judge?
Or is it option three: people with a (D) after their name get to play by special rules?
First, a quick recap of what’s been going on in the Senate, and how it’s become nakedly partisan:
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said on Tuesday that “there’s no presumption of innocence” for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh because a Senate hearing is not a legal proceeding.
“It’s not a legal proceeding, it’s a fact-finding proceeding… this is standard operating procedure,” Schumer said. “There is no presumption of innocence or guilt when you have a nominee before you.”
And Hawaii’s Senator said this in an interview with MSNBC’s Hallie Jackson:
I’m sure you’re aware that in conservative circles, there is some outrage, some anger at your comment. It’s being interpreted as, because this is a conservative judge, you’re not, you’ve already sort of made your decision about him as it relates to these accusations.”
“Can you clarify what you meant?” asked Jackson. “Do you believe Judge Kavanaugh does deserve the presumption of innocence or not?”
“Look, we’re not in a court of law, we’re actually in a court of credibility at this point,” said Hirono. “Without having the FBI report or some semblance of trying to get corroboration, we are left with the credibility of the two witnesses.”
“His credibility is already questionable in my mind,” she said. “Because one he misstates cases, he misapplies cases. And as I said at his hearing, we cannot have somebody on the Supreme Court who does that, who doesn’t even get the basics of the law.”
Even openly-partisan MSNBC realizes that’s new territory in America, and was giving the Democrat Senator chance to amend her original answer. Nope — she doubled down.
Will these ‘offended’ Senators play by their own rules?
The entire party is making a show of rallying around the woman who (they say) was wronged by Kavanaugh all those years ago.
They’re trying to pick splinters out of Republican eyes, but have they ignored lumber in their own? The (Official) argument goes that a position as important as the Supreme Court ought not be held by a man who would do such a thing to a woman.
(They are adamant about this even though, at this point, what he did or did not do is not yet obvious.)
Let’s take a peek in that eye, of theirs, shall we?
No, we don’t mean the still-unnamed members of Congress (any Senators?) who used a taxpayer-funded slush fund to pay off past complaints of sexual misconduct. But that’s an interesting question too. Will any such Senator be recusing himself from this process? Probably not.
Let’s recap a number of other incidents that are all more recent than the allegations against JUDGE Kavanaugh. We will add that all of these occurred when the person involved was ABOVE the legal voting age.
What about Sen Corey ‘I grabbed a boob but I’m better now’ Booker(D); Sen Bob ‘hung jury’ Menendez(D); or Sen Sherrod ‘Restraining Order’ Brown(D), to name a few? Will they be recusing themselves over these hearing?
Stepping out of the Senate, and into the broader, electoral landscape there are allegations, current ones about which the media has been all but silent concerning a highly-ranked Democrat.
This case involves potential criminal violence, includes medical records, phone records and alleges domestic assault against Keith Ellison.
That’s a little more significant than he-said-she-said.
Who is Keith Ellison?
Ah, he’s nobody significant. Just a Congressman who just ran for the leadership of the DNC last year and was probably impacted by known past connections to one Louis Farrakhan.
Before that, he was the Vice Chair of the DNC.
But currently, he’s hoping to get the job of Minnesota’s Attorney General.
See? ‘Practically a nobody’. Why would the media be remotely interested in his story?
Even hard-left blog Vox had to take notice of the awkward situation as the Democratic Primary drew near. Notice the subhead points to relative media silence:
Notice Ellison’s name is present in the Official Doctor’s notes:
When I post this, it gets deleted every time pic.twitter.com/uAJNx8AgF5
— Karen Monahan (@KarenMonahan01) September 19, 2018
Here’s a more recent headline, this one by the WashingtonTimes:
Democrats accused of trying to bury Ellison abuse allegations with sluggish probeAccuser says she plans to release more information
Now ask yourself — can you really take their party seriously, when you contrast these two situations?
If there is an investigation into [let’s use their phrase] recent ‘credible accusations of domestic abuse’ for a candiate seeking to be Minnesota’s Attorney General, and who was — not long ago — even running for leadership of the DNC, after being the Vice Chair, why are media types not clamoring to ‘believe the victim’, and why are they not enraged with the ever-so-dismissive phrase about ‘cooking up’ allegations?
On the other hand, if they are exercising cautioun about wrongly demonizing a man who has not faced his accuser, and they suspect even the slightest possibility that the motivation of his accuser might possibly retributive rather than honest — why have the same considerations not been offered to a sitting judge who has already survived 6 — SIX! — exhaustive federal background checks?
You can’t have it both ways.
The left thinks they’re playing winning politics. What they don’t realize is that they are doing what might once have been thought impossible: they are unifying the right around a common cause.
Where would that eventually lead? It should be obvious.
The resistance will eventually backfire and bring Republicans to a victory in 2020.