That’s it. I’m done with the hypocrisy and the identity politics.

It’s time to tell the truth and dig into the real issues at point. The truth is: there is a massive Leftist bent at work here. I shall buttress that statement.

Judge Kavanaugh is in the process of being Borked, though it lacks the process of a “high tech lynching” as quoted by now-Justice Clarence Thomas from 1991 but, absent the issue of melanin count, certainly quite similar as the graphic would indicate.

This is not without purpose. The graphic explains much, with one exception. The primary reason is an all-out continuing assault, via Kavanaugh, on anything having to do with President Donald Trump. If you recall, any number of Demorats quite stridently stated that they would vote against anyone nominated for SCOTUS by President Trump. They didn’t care who it was. Gandhi. Serena Williams. Didn’t matter.

What is “Borked” when used as a verb? Let’s go back to October 23rd of 1987 when President Reagan’s nominee, Judge Robert Bork, was voted down in the Senate, 58 against, 42 in favor. He was to replace retiring Associate Justice Lewis Powell. This was a conservative judge nominated by a conservative president. Bork’s video rental history, if you recall, was leaked to the press. Bork had “originalist” views, was an anti-trust scholar and his marriage to a Roman Catholic ensured, Demorats believed, that he would surely reverse Roe v Wade. Bork was reviled for briefly being Nixon’s Acting Attorney General.

Move ahead to 1991. In the last week leading up to Judge Clarence Thomas’s confirmation hearing for Supreme Court, Leftist activist Anita Hill accused Thomas of sexual harassment — a “he said, she said.” Add melanin count and the situation is similar to that of Ford and Kavanaugh. President Bush had nominated Thomas to replace Thurgood Marshall, who had announced his retirement.

In 1991, Clarence Thomas was confirmed to the Supreme Court by a Senate vote of 52 to 48. it is interesting that Amanda Prestigiacomo wrote this article in 2016 following an HBO film about Thomas and Hill:

6 Pieces Of Evidence Anita Hill Was Lying

1.A witness said she was told details about the supposed sexual harassment while the two were living in Washington, except this witness was not living in Washington when Hill worked for Thomas.

The witness supposedly corroborating Hills’ allegations had moved out of Washington before Hill even began working for Thomas. How could she have possibly been told about the harassment before it happened?

2. Hill followed Thomas, a man she accused of sexual harassment, from job to job.

Hill claimed that she feared losing her government job if she did not follow Thomas from job to job. As Brookings Institute senior fellow Stuart Taylor Jr. points out, Hill was an employee of the federal government, known for its incredible job security.

3. Hill made numerous phone calls to her supposed sexual harasser after she stopped working for him.

Phone logs document numerous calls from Hill to Thomas after she stopped working for him, notes Thomas Sowell. It seems rather odd that a woman would consistently call a man who sexually harassed her.

Further, Hill initially denied that she made these calls — which doesn’t exactly boost her credibility either.

4. Hill initially asked to be kept anonymous when her accusations were presented to Thomas. But if her accusations were true, then Thomas would know that the accusations were launched by Hill, so why ask for anonymity?

Sowell elaborates: “The really fatal fact about Anita Hill’s accusations was that they were first made to the Senate Judiciary Committee in confidence, and she asked that her name not be mentioned when the accusations were presented to Judge Thomas by those trying to pressure him to withdraw his nomination to the Supreme Court.

“Think about it: The accusations referred to things that were supposed to have happened when only two people were present,” adds Sowell. “If the accusations were true, Clarence Thomas would automatically know who originated them. Anita Hill’s request for anonymity made sense only if the charges were false.”

5. Hill lied five times about being told something from a Democratic staffer, which she later admitted to under oath.

The Federalisthighlights that Hill admitted, under oath, that although she previously denied being told something by a Democratic staffer, she actually was. This of course reeks of a political motive for the allegations and, again, a lack of credibility of the accuser.

6.A dozen females who worked with Thomas and Hill gave favorable testimony about Thomas and refuted the claims by Hill of Thomas’ inappropriate behavior.

As noted in the Wall Street Journal, “a dozen” women came out in support of Thomas, giving glowing testimony of his behavior, lending contradiction to Hills’ accusations.

Two things we seem to know about sexual assault accusations in these #MeToo days:

• There will be a flood of persons subsequently coming forward to accuse Judge Kavanaugh, or
• No one else will come forward.

In the case of Thomas, two other women were mentioned but did not testify. As of this writing, there is one accuser of Judge Brett Kavanaugh. And 65 women supporting him by letter. Time for a September 14th article by Virginia Hume, who wrote this article in The Weekly Standard:

About That Letter From Women in Support of Brett Kavanaugh

by Virginia Hume

I signed it. Here’s how it went down.

On Thursday afternoon, Dianne Feinstein released a cryptic statement saying she had submitted to federal investigators a letter about Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Although the FBI quickly announced it would not pursue an investigation, speculation surfaced that the claims related to an incident of sexual misconduct dating to Kavanaugh’s high school years.

On Friday, a group of women who knew Brett in high school sent a letter in support of him to Senators Grassley and Feinstein. I am one of those 65 women. Having seen some of the reaction to the letter, I’d like to clear up a few things:

The letter was conceived and drafted by friends of Brett’s, and it was drafted afterallegations came out on Thursday. I learned about the letter from a friend and fellow signatory. Others learned about it the same way. Those surprised at the speed with which it came together should see it as yet another testament to Brett’s excellent reputation.

To those who responded to my tweet saying “I knew Brett in high school” by asking if I had gender reassignment surgery: I went to an all-girls school in Bethesda. He went to an all-boys school in Bethesda. We were permitted upon occasion to speak to people of the opposite sex.

To those hearing the thwap thwap thwap of black helicopters because my father is a journalist or because I worked in politics: In a group of 65 graduates of D.C. area schools, it would be odd not to find someone related to or working as a journalist or politician. It is entirely unremarkable. This is a company town. (That said, it might explain why people happened to see my tweets on the subject).

Finally, to the one person who said I’m too young to know Brett Kavanaugh: Truly, I thank you from the bottom of my heart.

So no, the letter of support was not “waiting in the wings for weeks” as Leftists allege, to be magically exhumed if or when necessary, circumstance-dependent. Other women came out as well.

Bork was a bit of the beginning of partisanship in SCOTUS hearings, Thomas followed up and now we have Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

Senator Diane Feinstein was made aware of the allegations, via letter, by then-anonymous accuser, Leftist clinical psychology professor Christine Blasey Ford, in July. She sat on that letter. Judge Jeanine Pirro explains how and why.

The allegations are, from the WashintonPost.com article by Emma Brown:

Speaking publicly for the first time, Ford said that one summer in the early 1980s, Kavanaugh and a friend — both “stumbling drunk,” Ford alleges — corralled her into a bedroom during a gathering of teenagers at a house in Montgomery County.

While his friend watched, she said, Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed on her back and groped her over her clothes, grinding his body against hers and clumsily attempting to pull off her one-piece bathing suit and the clothing she wore over it. When she tried to scream, she said, he put his hand over her mouth.

“I thought he might inadvertently kill me,” said Ford, now a 51-year-old research psychologist in northern California. “He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing.”

Ford said she was able to escape when Kavanaugh’s friend and classmate at Georgetown Preparatory School, Mark Judge, jumped on top of them, sending all three tumbling. She said she ran from the room, briefly locked herself in a bathroom and then fled the house.

That was 36 years ago, in 1982. Judge Kavanaugh categorically denied the allegation, then responded again, in writing, on Monday the 17th:

But there is more information to be gleaned from all of this, much of it not revealed by the American Media Maggots, and some of it already removed by Twitter — including one of my own Tweets. Luckily, because I suspected this would occur, I captured much of the information with screen shots.

Let’s start with this story, from TruePundit.com:

Kavanaugh Accuser’s Brother Worked for Law Firm that Paid Fusion GPS For Work with Russian Lawyer Who Set Up Trump Tower Meeting

Ralph Blasey III, Christine Ford’s brother was formerly employed at the D.C. offices of Baker & Hostetler LLP. That’s the same firm that made payments over over half a million dollars to Fusion GPS.

Ralph Blasey III left Baker & Hostetler LLP in 2004. Still, its’ just another rather odd twist to the case of the accuser of Brett Kavanaugh. First it was revealed Ford is a far left, Northern California professor. Then last night it was revealed that Brett Kavanugh’s mother, a Maryland district judge in the 1990’s foreclosure case against Christine Ford’s parents.

And now this. Christine Ford’s brother once worked for Baker & Hostetler LLP that paid Fusion GPS $523,651 between March 7, 2016 and Oct. 31, 2016. Even though the payments were made after Blasey III left Baker & Hostetler LLP, one has to wonder (and investigate) his connections with the law firm. He may have had no knowledge at all of the payment. Ralph Blasey might have had ZERO influence with the payment.

No Left leanings there. None in the family. This is not a continuing familial thread that indicates a pattern of despising all things Conservative — to include Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Why, nothing of the sort. Perish that thought. Except that, well, there’s more. Of course there’s more. Let’s start with Bill Maher, who wasn’t exactly overjoyed with the anonymous accuser:

Why ever would I, right out of the box, accuse Ford of being a Leftist? From Breitbart.com:

Kavanaugh Accuser Signed Letter Fighting Trump Border Enforcement

by John Binder

The woman accusing President Trump’s United States Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of a “rape attempt” when the two were in high school previously signed a letter fighting Trump’s “Zero Tolerance” policy at the U.S.-Mexico border.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)—an open borders advocacy organization—letter was written and sent to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and Attorney General Jeff Sessions in June.

Christine Blasey Ford, a psychology professor, signed the ACLU letter as “Christine Blasey Ph.D. Psychologist,” signing off on statements that accused Trump of using southern border enforcement to “traumatize children” and claimed the Zero Tolerance policy was “violating fundamental human rights.”

But wait; there’s more. First, Terrence Williams, because he makes me larf.

Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh accuser said he assaulted her 30 years ago at a high school
party? Girl bye ?✌️

*Am I the only who don’t believe this crap? I might be I don’t know. pic.twitter.com/L0iBQdQGXE

— Terrence K. Williams (@w_terrence) September 17, 2018

Of course, Professor Ford has already lawyered up. Why? You’re either correct or you’re not. Does Professor Ford somehow envision herself subject to suit therefore requiring of a mouthpiece? You could just as easily have chose a friend or relative to be a spokesperson. Or did you hire your lawyer in order to make another semi-subliminal Leftist statement? Because what is it that we know about the mouthpiece that Ford specifically chose? Two things. One:

Lawyer for Kavanaugh accuser downplayed sexual misconduct allegations against Clinton, Franken

by Alex Pappas

Attorney Debra Katz made the rounds Monday on morning television to argue her client’s sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh should be taken seriously, an appeal accepted even by the White House. 

But while her client’s claims have raised bipartisan concerns about Kavanaugh, Katz, a longtime Democratic donor known for representing sexual harassment accusers, also has a history of downplaying or dismissing accusations made by women against Democratic politicians — including former President Bill Clinton and former Minnesota Sen. Al Franken.

“Paula Jones’ suit is very, very, very weak,” Katz said on CNN’s “Talkback Live” in March 1998 in a discussion about Jones’ claims against Clinton, according to a show transcript. “She’s alleged one incident that took place in a hotel room that, by her own testimony, lasted 10 to 12 minutes. She suffered no repercussions in the workplace.”

Katz, in other media appearances first highlighted by Townhall, suggested Jones didn’t have much of a case.

“Clearly a one-time incident that took place in 10 to 12 minutes, she was not forced to have sex, she left on her own volition, the courts increasingly are finding that that is not enough to create a sexually hostile work environment claim,” Katz said in April 1998, according to a transcript of CBS Evening News.

Hang on. It gets better.

”If a woman came to me with a similar fact pattern, that is someone in the company above her propositioned her but only once and she suffered no tangible job detriment,” Katz told The New York Times in 1998, ”I would probably tell her that I’m sorry, it’s unfair, but you don’t have a case.”

Katz, speaking to the newspaper, added, ”If it’s one time, it has to be severe, almost a sexual assault, not just a touching of somebody’s breast or buttocks or even forceful kissing.”

Two:

KAVANAUGH ACCUSER’S LAWYER: IT’S NOT HER JOB TO CORROBORATE HER STORY

by Amber Athey

Debra Katz, the attorney for the woman accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, said that it is not her client’s job to corroborate her claims.

You heard that correctly. I suppose it’s simply her job to make allegations and then wait for the 100-car freeway pileup.

Further, we find this lawyer is tied in with George Soros. From 100percentfedup.com:

JUST IN: KAVANAUGH ACCUSER’S Lawyer Connected To Soros’ Open Society Foundation

The plot thickens…There are two key people involved with Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser who need to be looked at further. Senator Lindsey Graham asked the best question yet on the Kavanaugh accuser and we’re beginning to get some answers to his question:

 Senator Graham: Here is what I want your audience to know. If Miss Ford really did not want to come forward, never intended to come forward, never planned to come forward, why did she pay for a polygraph in August and why did she hire a lawyer in August if she never intended to do what she’s doing?… And who’s paid for it?

Debra Katz, the attorney for Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, is vice chair of the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) which has been directly funded by George Soros’ Open Society Foundation.

She’s donated about $24K to liberal causes including Moveon.org and had this to say about Trump advisors on Facebook:

 “These people are all miscreants. The term ‘basket of deplorables’ is far too generous a description for these people who are now Senior Trump advisors.”

Debra Katz is a known lawyer who specializes in the representation of whistleblowers. How was it that she was hired months ago to represent Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser? Remember that Senator Feinstein claimed that the anonymous person wanted to stay anonymous. If that’s the case, why did this woman secure a lawyer specializing in whistleblower cases months ago?

This is probably just the tip of the iceberg with the involvement from the left in trying to stop the Kavanaugh confirmation. These people will stop at nothing to get what they want.

AND THEN THERE’S THIS:

The hard left group “Indivisible” was founded “to defeat the Trump agenda, elect progressive leaders & realize bold progressive policies.” They have a section on their website dedicated to stopping Judge Kavanaugh. Christine Blasey was active in their Silicon Valley Chapter.

This reeks. This doesn’t pass the smell test. It’s precisely what Senate Demorats did to Clarence Thomas in 1991. But here’s what’s going to happen.

There will be new hearings starting on Monday the 24h. From the NYT.com:

Hearing set for Monday to hear Kavanaugh and his accuser

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, under mounting pressure from senators of his own party, will call President Trump’s nominee, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, and the woman who has accused him of sexual assault before the committee on Monday for extraordinary public hearings just weeks before the midterm elections.

But as of Tuesday, there is new information. Mark Judge says he’s not coming to testify. From the WashingtonTimes.com:

Mark Judge, other man in room according to Kavanaugh accuser, tells senators he won’t testify

by Alex Swoyer

Mark Judge, a friend of Brett Kavanaugh’s from high school, told senators Tuesday he doesn’t recall anything like the attempted sexual assault a woman claims she suffered at the hands of Judge Kavanaugh — and that Mr. Judgewitnessed.

Mr. Judge, through his lawyer, also said he does not want to speak publicly about it, effectively shooting down Democrats’ calls that he testify next week as part of a free-wheeling hearing to examine Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations about a decades-old attempted assault.

“I have no memory of this alleged incident,” Mr. Judge said in a statement his lawyer provided to the Judiciary Committee. “Brett Kavanaugh and I were friends in high school but I do not recall the party described in Dr. Ford’s letter. More to the point, I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes.”

As if that weren’t enough, now there’s doubt about the accuser. From Reuters.com:

Doubts arise over whether Trump court nominee’s accuser will testify

by Lawrence Hurley and Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A woman who has accused President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault decades ago has not yet agreed to testify at a U.S. Senate hearing set for next Monday, raising questions about whether the high-stakes public showdown will take place.

Christine Blasey Ford, a university professor in California whose allegations have put Kavanaugh’s once-safe nomination in jeopardy, has not responded to attempts by the Republican-led Senate Judiciary Committee to contact her about appearing at the hearing, committee Chairman Chuck Grassley said on Tuesday.

Yes, despite the accuser, Ford, stating she would testify.

Debra Katz, a lawyer representing Ford, said in television interviews on Monday that the professor would be willing to testify and called the alleged incident “attempted rape.” Katz did not respond to Reuters requests for comment.

Trust me, if you thought Day One of the Kavanaugh hearing was explosive Kabuki Theater, you haven’t seen anything yet. This coming Monday the 24th will be every bit the Shit Show and then some. If you thought there was posturing, you haven’t seen posturing. If you thought there was acting, umbrage, Sturm und Drang, you haven’t seen acting, umbrage and Sturm und Drang. More on this at the conclusion.

How odd that, up to this point, Kavanaugh has managed to pass six prior hearings and FBI background checks with a flawless record.

That said, here is the Demorat Game Plan. First, tar and feather Judge Kavanaugh and hang the dead cat of Professor Ford around his neck. Once accomplished, because he is a current sitting DC court judge, Demorats will move to have him impeached.

This is an interesting note from Axios.com, however:

Scoop: GOP plans to play hardball on Kavanaugh

Strategists advising Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh plan to use aggressive tactics this week in response to the public accusation of a “stumbling drunk” sexual assault in high school that instantly imperiled his confirmation, top sources tell Jonathan Swan.

• A source close to the process said that if Democrats sink Kavanaugh “we’ll just bring in someone moreconservative.”

The senators to watch:

• Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), the most crucial swing vote, told CNN that she was “surprised” by the accusation, but: “I don’t know enough to create the judgment at this point.”

• Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), the other critical vote, told CNN the committee “might” need to consider a delay.

• Judiciary Committee member Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who isn’t on the committee “but whose vote is critical to Kavanaugh’s confirmation,” told Politico that the committee should pause.

• Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer called for an FBI investigation and a postponement of the vote.

Just like John McCain, lame duck Arizona Senator Jeff Flake is just that: a flake who should have turned his (R) to a (D). The same with Collins and Murkowski.

Let’s now examine a series of Tweets that saw the light of day on Monday the 17th — and some that were subsequently removed by Twitter.

I first noticed Kurt Schlichter making a salient point about a possible motivation with regard to Kavanaugh and the sexual allegation by Ford.

Suspicion increased with Christine Blasey Ford erased her social media.

In 1996, Kavanaugh’s mother was the judge in a home foreclosure action against Ford’s parents. Now the animus makes sense. Add Donald Trump as president and then stir to taste.

More evidence, immured in a screen capture.

C’mon. High school drunken hijinks are much more serious than robbery and drunk driving! Get with it!

Why? Because Feinstein is now, as I am wont to say, “insufficiently left for the Left.” She must continue to prove that she is valid in 2018’s Demorat world. She’s getting tremendous pushback from California Demorats who have decided they’re going to back Kevin deLeon instead of her, for a Senate seat. In order to look “relevant” Feinstein, I believe, thinks she was forced to provide the information despite, perhaps, her first inclination to just hold it. She mused: “what will happen to me if it’s found that I had the means to squash Kavanaugh, and I didn’t use it?”

Okay. So she apparently enjoyed drinking and swiving. So do boys. It comes at a cost for both.

More Tweets immured. You know. Justin Case.

More evidence. Different views.

This was documented at WayneDupree.com, amongst other sites:

Kavanaugh’s Mother Presided Over Case That Included Accuser’s Parents

Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s mother, Martha, seems to have presided over his accuser’s parents court case back in 1996.

I have enlarged the entire public file below under the tweet but it seems as if Blasey’s parents didn’t fare that well in the judgment and if there are hearings due to this late accusation/allegation, this information should also be entered into evidence as a motive for revenge.

Ralph and Paula Blasey looks like they lost some property due to debt in Kavanaugh’s court.

Motive? I’d say so. Additionally, from PacificPundit.com:

CHRISTINE BLASEY-FORD MOTIVE: REVENGE – KAVANAUGH’S MOTHER JUDGE AGAINST PARENTS IN FORECLOSURE CASE 1996

Martha G. Kavanaugh, the mother of Brett Kavanaugh was a Maryland district judge in 1996. In an amazing coincidence, Martha Kavanaugh was the judge in a foreclosure case in which Christine Blasey-Ford’s parents were the defendants. Now it all becomes clear. Blasey-Ford is going after Brett Kavanaugh, not because of what he did in high school. Instead, Christine Blasey-Ford is going after Brett Kavanaugh out of spite and revenge for a case rulled on by Brett Kavanaugh mother. Martha Kavanaugh, Brett’s mother was Montgomery County Circuit Court judge from 1993 until she retired in 2001. During a 1996 foreclosure case, Martha Kavanaugh ruled against the parents of Christine Blasey-Ford in a foreclosure case.

The foreclosure case against Paula K. Blasey and Ralph G. Blasey was opened on August 8, 1996. The case number is 156006V.

Isn’t it kind of amazing that all the media reports today didn’t mention this little conflict of interest for Blasey-Ford?

Another story covering the issue is here.

As an FTO for a major California department, I looked to identify trends and patterns so that I could reward positive patterns and attempt to correct negative trends and patterns. We generally know that past performance is the best predictor of future performance (or the lack thereof). Behavior patterns must be identified. They frequently are.

Just as patterns and trends went towards the motivation of FBI Agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, including their political predilections, these patterns and trends go towards the political motivations and predilections of Christine Blasey Ford. Women can be every bit as treacherous, plotting, conniving and untruthful as men. There’s your real equality.

Stop. A moment about the truth. There was a buried secret in the department I once worked for, regarding Sex Assault rape investigations. No one was to speak of it, because it was the department’s dirty little secret, its dirty little lie.

And that was, at the time (I cannot speak for trends and patterns now but I suspect they have not predominantly changed due to human behavior), roughly 40% to 50% of the rape reports coming through the bureau were later proven to be false. Women would falsify reports due to fear, venality, spite, vengeance, drunkenness and a host of other reasons.

That is how and why I continued on the path, as a detective and a peace officer, to ensure that the accused were innocent until proven guilty. I needed proof. I required evidence. I was driven by the facts and evidence. I had to go where the facts led me. If I couldn’t prove it, I couldn’t file it, request a warrant or make a fresh arrest. Simple.

An interesting point by Judge Andrew Napolitano.

Yes, #MeToo has its place. But that does not mean that due process is dismissed because, as I’ve found in four decades in law enforcement, you can never go wrong by adhering to the foundational documents of this nation. Allegations are just that. Absent corroboration they can and should die an ugly death.

Scott Morefield nails it:

Still, even the most skeptical among us might acknowledge that something may have happened that evening in 1982. Ford supposedly passed a polygraph test, so if those can be trusted we know at least she believes it. But what exactly? An attempted rape? A misplaced grope? A clumsy, unwanted kiss? A drunken make-out session that led to nothing? All of it’s up in the air, and when you’re looking 36 years in the mirror, especially if you’re a liberal knowing you could score a much-needed goal for the #Resistance, it can pretty much become whatever you need it to be.

Here is BZ‘s Heresy: should women inherently be believed when allegations are made? No. Of course not. They’re no better than men. Should they be free to make claims and allegations? Yes, they should. As should men. Because sexual harassment isn’t a one-way street any more. Power corrupts on both sides of the sexual aisle. I’ve had it occur to me. But that’s a story for another day.

What we have — allegedly, and unconfirmed —  is a teenager who got drunk and tried to have sex with a girl. Of course, you never got drunk in high school.

Well, sorry to burst any bubbles — but that’s pretty much any teenage boy’s life, particularly in the decades since the 1960s, when permissiveness and casual hook-ups became a lifestyle. BZ got more ass in the late 60s and early 70s than the women’s bathroom at a channeling convention.

However, should there be consequences for false reports of crime? Oh hell yes. Because those false reports waste valuable investigatory time and simultaneously diminish the veracity and credulity of real crimes against women who are real victims.

Listen: I still don’t trust “psychotherapy.” I don’t trust psychologists. The human mind is subject to a myriad of influences. I can beat a polygraph and I can beat a CVSA. I’ve done it. I can also beat the MMPI. I’ve done it. I’ve taken Rorshach tests. Hell, I’m color blind and I beat the color blindness test because a friend gave me the numbers.

One teensy-weensy question: Demorats somehow managed to forgive Teddy Kennedy for killing Mary Jo Kopechne in July of 1969. In fact, her killer, Teddy Kennedy, later became the much-venerated “Lion of the Senate.” Perhaps for his monumental drinking binges if nothing else?

But they somehow fail to find it in their hearts to forgive Brett Kavanaugh for, apparently, trying to get some high school tit action.

THIS JUST IN ON TUESDAY:

Diane Feinstein herself is now doubting the credulity of Professor Ford. From Mediaite.com:

Diane Feinstein on Kavanaugh allegation: “I can’t say everything is truthful”

by Caleb Howe

Senator Dianne Feinstein, who held from public view the letter from Christine Blasey Ford detailing an accusation against Donald Trump‘s SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh, told reporters today she cannot say “everything’s truthful.”

Speaking to Fox News reporters, Feinstein said: “No one called her, or called her lawyer. My understanding is she got emails. I have no say. I’m the lead Democrat so this is all up to the Republican side.”

“I can’t say everything’s truthful,” Feinstein added. “I don’t know.”

Then there was this blockbuster. where Jim Hoft from Gateway Pundit Tweeted:

BREAKING: According to sources, Diane Feinstein’s reluctance to mention the Kavanaugh accuser’s letter during confirmation session is because the accuser sent a similar letter directed at Judge Gorsuch last year. The whereabouts of the earlier letter remain a mystery. Developing.

Can you imagine if this information turns out to be correct?

Call it the Red Tsunami.

BZ