Feelings lead to arbitrary reactions. The strength of the rule of law is feelings don’t prove either innocence or guilt.
The Constitution (Article III, Section 3) follows the Biblical mandate for a minimum of two witnesses for any accusation of wrongdoing to stand trial. Look to Deuteronomy 19:15 and Matthew 18:16 to understand this principle of jurisprudence.
The first claimant has a fluid story that suggests composition, not a recollection. All the persons she names as her witnesses do not corroborate her story. I repeat, all.
The first shot failed to hit its mark so the Alinskyite Democrats reach for a hole card.
The second accuser had little personal recollection of an alleged event but while with her attorney, she composed like Mozart and sings her song like a canary.
My contemporaries and I saw this playbook years ago while Justice Clarence Thomas was undergoing a similar Senate Judiciary inquisition. It’s a different year with a very similar script.
In light of the 14th Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection clauses, I ask, “What if the accusations are untrue?”
Presumption of innocence is a sacred principle of our American criminal justice system.
To be sure, the Democrats are into a full-Bork assault on Justice Kavanaugh. If the first accuser doesn’t do the trick, the second comes on stage for act 2, and you can be sure if the curtain falls on act 2, a third act will follow.
On the day President Trump announced his nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Sen. Chuck Schumer pledged to oppose the nominee. It mattered not who President Trump nominated. It mattered not what the judge’s professional history is.
Which Democrat senators visited with Judge Kavanaugh before the hearings? None. They were all committed to the defeat of President Donald Trump and to effectively nullifying the 2016 presidential elections.
As Democrats intensify their attacks on this good man, my faith in him intensifies even more.