Democrats Use Same Tactics Against Kavanaugh They Did Against Thomas

It’s déjà vu all over again. Senate Democrats dusted off an old tactic for use against Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

On Sunday afternoon, four days before the Senate Judiciary Committee was scheduled to approve Kavanaugh for confirmation to the Supreme Court by the full Senate, a woman who’d written a letter claiming she’d been sexually attacked by him came forward.

In July, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., was given a letter from someone who wished to remain anonymous, accusing Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct when they were both in high school. Feinstein only divulged this last week.

The alleged victim, Christine Blasey Ford, 51, publicly opened up to tell her story to The Washington Post, one that she’d recalled during a 2012 therapy session.

She claimed that Kavanaugh and his friend, Mark Judge, were both “stumbling drunk,” when they cornered her in a bedroom during a party.

“I thought [Kavanaugh] might inadvertently kill me,” Ford told the Post. “He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing.”

She claimed she was only able to escape when Judge jumped on top of them, sending all three tumbling in different directions.

She then locked herself in a bedroom for a few minutes before fleeing the home altogether.

When contacted by the Post, the White House repeated the statement Kavanaugh released Friday, after Feinstein first alluded to the claims.

“I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time.”

Judge confirmed his friend’s denial, telling The New York Times that Kavanaugh was a “brilliant student” who enjoyed sports and wasn’t “into anything crazy or illegal.”

In addition, more than five dozen women who knew Kavanaugh in high school submitted a letter stating that allegations of sexual misconduct were in direct contrast to Kavanaugh’s character.

“For the entire time we have known Brett Kavanaugh, he has behaved honorably and treated women with respect,” the letter said, signed by 65 women and sent to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and ranking member Feinstein. “We strongly believe it is important to convey this information to the committee at this time.”

The Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee thought the timing of the accusation was highly suspicious.

“It is disturbing that these uncorroborated allegations from more than 35 years ago, during high school, would surface on the eve of a committee vote after Democrats sat on them since July,” their statement said.

This is a replay of years ago, when Anita Hill lodged sexual misconduct claims against then-Supreme Court nominee, now-Justice Clarence Thomas.

Both Hill and Ford, Kavanaugh’s accuser, are now college professors. The big difference is that Hill came forward during the confirmation hearings, giving Thomas the opportunity to confront his accuser.

Ford remained quiet until more than a week after the Kavanaugh hearings. This wasn’t lost on committee Republicans.

“If Ranking Member Feinstein and other Committee Democrats took this claim seriously, they should have brought it to the full Committee’s attention much earlier. Instead, they said nothing of those discussions,” the GOP statement continued.

“It raises a lot of questions about Democrats’ tactics and motives to bring this to the rest of the committee’s attention only now rather than during these many steps along the way.”

But it may come down to the court of public opinion.

When salacious charges are lodged against a public figure, the accuser typically never has to prove a thing; in the court of public opinion, the accused has to prove his innocence.

Also, the 35-year lag of time means nothing. In the court of public opinion the statute of limitations doesn’t exist.

Finally, in the court of public opinion, proof is optional. Like the Spanish Inquisition, all it takes is an accusation.

Sound ridiculous? NARAL, a pro-abortion activist organization, issued a statement on this latest development.

“[Ford’s] story is yet another proof point that Brett Kavanaugh is unfit to serve on the Supreme Court and his nomination should be withdrawn immediately,” NARAL Pro-Choice America President Ilyse Hogue said. “He is entitled to defend himself in an associated investigation but that should not happen while he is still in contention for a lifetime appointment to the highest Court in the land.”

The new standard: A bare allegation now constitutes “proof.” Had that been the standard of proof years ago, the high court would have been denied the wisdom of Justice Thomas.

There now appears to be a hitch with the Kavanaugh allegation. His accuser’s parents were reportedly defendants in a home foreclosure case presided by Kavanaugh’s mother, Martha G. Kavanaugh, when she served as a Montgomery County, Maryland, judge.

“Accuser Christine Ford's PARENTS Were Defendants in a 1996 Foreclosure Case, Presided Over by Kavanaugh’s Mother,” reported Fox News Channel’s Laura Ingraham.

This was confirmed by Townhall senior columnist Kurt Schlichter.

“I checked the Montgomery County docket,” he tweeted. “Brett Kavanaugh's mother was the judge on a house foreclosure case that appears to be the accuser's parents. I don't buy any of it.”

The time to have reported any misconduct in this case ended nearly 35 years ago.

Michael Dorstewitz is a retired lawyer and has been a frequent contributor to BizPac Review and Liberty Unyielding. He’s also a former U.S. Merchant Marine officer and an enthusiastic Second Amendment supporter, who can often be found honing his skills at the range. To read more of his reports — Click Here Now.