Monday, September 17, 2018

Feinstein Feigns Angst While Abusing Victim


Knowing next to nothing about the inner workings of the Supreme Court, I can't render a valid verdict on whether Brett Kavanaugh will literally be the best pick to replace Anthony Kennedy.  But he's been widely praised across the political spectrum by folks who both value conservative ideals and those who don't, but who understand a Republican president isn't going to nominate a left-winger.

He at least meets - if not exceeds - all of the basic qualifications.  Which has left his opponents little else in the way of discrediting him except the tired old partisan shill, particularly when it comes to their desire for women to claim an advantage over men - in the form of ending life in the womb.  If a man were to do that, it would be a crime, but for a woman to do it is seen practically in heroic terms.

But the replacement of Justice Kennedy isn't about abortion anymore.  It has disintegrated into a charade of liberal duplicity regarding the much-lauded "Me Too" movement.

Unfortunately for our country, the Senate hearings for Kavanaugh's nomination process started off with a circus of cacophony, from indiscreet hecklers in the audience to indiscreet hecklers among the senators themselves.  The incivility and blatant rudeness into which Washington has descended, whether lubricated by President Donald Trump's own belligerence or not, represents a sad fact of life in our bitterly divided United States.  Whether elected or part of the electorate, many of us hold decorum in contempt, and due process as intolerable.

Still, the new depths to which our public discourse keeps sinking can be unnerving.

Witness the salaciousness with which Democrats have trotted out a woman who was allegedly attacked sexually by Kavanaugh.  When they were in high school.  And they had both been drinking.

Not that the fact that both of them were drinking is an excuse.  For all of the right-wing chuckling over President Trump's many, many adulterous relationships, "no" still does mean "no."  And, perhaps surprisingly, nobody in Trump's cabinet today is saying that Kavanaugh's accuser shouldn't be heard.

But the thing is:  Kavanaugh's accuser first approached Democrats with her allegations in July.  Two months ago.  Last week, somebody "leaked" her story to the media, and the alleged victim publicly identified herself through the Washington Post yesterday.

So now, we have Dianne Feinstein, one of the most ardent voices for women's rights, using an accusation of attempted rape as a political ploy in a dramatic theater of the obstructionist.  Two months ago, Feinstein didn't run to the FBI with this story, eager to claim a virtuous justice for the alleged victim.

No.  This claim of sexual assault could wait just a little while longer, to be used not as an instrument of psychological redemption for the purported victim.  Or as a long-deserved battle for justice.  But a last-minute tactic during a confirmation hearing for which Democrats were running out of mechanisms for stalling.

So when is an attempted rape a crime?  Apparently when it's politically expedient.

What a sordid notion for Democrats to contrive.

Of course, die-hard liberals would say that this alleged victim is the sacrificial lamb being laid on the altar of broader objectives in the fight for women's rights, which liberals believe will be eviscerated at the hands of Kavanaugh.

When the alleged victim first told her story to a politician, in early July of this year, it was to her California congresswoman, Democrat Anna Eshoo.  Eshoo eventually told Feinstein, towards the end of July, but the alleged victim wanted secrecy.  She'd already been to private counseling for the matter years earlier, and in 2012, she'd mentioned to her husband that she was worried that Kavanaugh might one day make it to the Supreme Court.  Last month, the alleged victim had a former FBI official run a polygraph test on her, which indicated she was being truthful in her accusations. 

So this isn't something some Democrat elites cooked up at the last minute.  But it was something Democrats decided was worth voiding their pact of secrecy.  After all, it wasn't until this story was leaked that the alleged victim allowed the Post to name her, claiming that if her identity was going to be forcibly attached to this story, she wanted to be the one to tell it.

As is typical of such sordid allegations, this is mostly a "she said - he said" scenario, the kind that are notoriously difficult to prove one way or the other.  Which is probably one reason why the alleged victim never came forward earlier.

And, again, there has been no indication today from the White House than an investigation into the claims being made against Kavanaugh will be opposed, although it sounds like there's little to investigate.  So much time has elapsed, there is no physical evidence, and memories are now clouded with the advancement of age.

What the Democrats have done, though, is such a disgrace to the alleged victim.  She wanted privacy, so why couldn't her allegations have been introduced with that privacy?  Why did they have to be leaked?  The only reason can be because Feinstein really doesn't value victims rights, even for women.  For Feinstein, alleged rape is just another tool for a politician to use.

"There's a lot of information we don't know," claimed Feinstein this weekend, "and the FBI should have the time it needs to investigate this new material."

Balderdash.  The FBI could have been working on this in July, two months ago.

And liberals are worried about Kavanaugh?

_____