Dan Gainor: Anti-Kavanaugh media and Hollywood bias explodes in a bad week for America

notorious creep

Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh was targeted for demonization in a disgusting display of media malpractice this past week, as he was depicted in almost every disparaging way possible in coverage of uncorroborated sexual misconduct allegations against him.

Comments in the media about the judge included: “MIGHT Be A Serial Rapist,” “drunk,” “aggressive,” “mean” and “probably guilty.”  And Kavanaugh was compared to convicted sex offender Bill Cosby.

Journalists didn’t just set the narrative, they marketed it, using similar phrasings to emphasize how the audience was supposed to think in negative terms about the conservative judge nominated by President Trump. This exposed the allegiance of much of the media to the left and Democrats.

While Kavanaugh was the chief victim of this blatant media bias, America and the American people will suffer long-term.
CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin accused Kavanaugh of having gone “all Trump Republican” to appease supporters – the greatest sin in the liberal universe.
If Kavanaugh is confirmed by the Senate and seated on the nation’s highest court, millions of women  are “just going to feel annihilated inside” we were told by ABC.
It wasn’t just the attacks, it was the group-think involved, making sure viewers and readers were hateful toward the nominee and Republicans. Note the similar themes in describing the judge, who serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia:
●       “An aggressive and mean drunk,” (Sunny Hostin on “The View”); “Angry drunk” (Joy Behar on “The View”)  “unusually drunk” (New York Times).
●       “Roared with anger, unjudicious raw anger“ (Terry Moran, ABC); “belligerent” (MSNBC’s “Hardball” host Chris Matthews); “unhinged” (CNN political commentator Symone Sanders); “unsettling temperament” (New York Times editorial).
●       “Attempted rapist” (Craig Calcaterra, NBC Sports); “Kinda like a rapist would be!” (DL Hughley, entertainer).
This was quite a contrast with how the media covered Professor Christine Blasey Ford, who accused Kavanaugh of attempting to rape her some 36 years ago when both were in high school. Kavanaugh has categorically denied the accusation and testified that he has never sexually assaulted Ford or anyone else. Ford has produced no evidence or the testimony of anyone else to back up her accusations.

As a measure how bad the media were this past week, “Morning Joe” host Joe Scarborough on MSNBC was one of the most prominent voices of reason.

The descriptions of Ford included: “Some hailing her as a hero” (NBC correspondent Stephanie Gosk, “Today”); and “I need to apologize for all men” (legal analyst Daniel Goldman, MSNBC).
Calling Kavanaugh “angry and belligerent” was typical because the media were trying to depict him as unfit for the Supreme Court.
MSNBC contributor Cynthia Alksne made that very clear. She accused Kavanaugh of throwing a “temper tantrum” and added: “That’s not the temperament of a federal judge.”
Slate’s Will Saletan mirrored the comment, saying that Kavanaugh “lacks the temperament to serve on the Supreme Court.”
The attacks were only beginning there. Behar went on an unhinged racial rant even though both Kavanaugh and Ford are white. “These people are only interested in retaining white power in this country!” she said and said America’s near future would be “like South Africa apartheid.”
While slightly less unhinged, CNN senior political analyst David Gergen (a white guy) still found himself wondering “if you have a group of 11 white men sitting there on the Republican side, you have to ask: Do they get it?”
CNN’s “Cuomo Prime Time” anchor Chris Cuomo had the audacity to ask “Was Brett Kavanaugh known at Yale as a virgin?” 
Journalism 2018.
But the media went from meltdown to calm down when Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., called for a reopened investigation of sexual misconduct charges against Kavanaugh. Suddenly, Flake was their star. And CNN and others were singing the praises of “bipartisanship” – which they consider Republicans surrendering to Democrats.
The New York Times actually ran a sub-headline on an editorial saying “Thank you, Jeff Flake.” The main headline on the piece said: “Maybe America Can Now Learn the Truth,” as if the paper’s editorial board seriously sought that result.
Bloomberg Opinion Editor Mark Gongloff agreed, writing: “Jeff Flake's Pause Is Refreshing,” as if being a senator is comparable to being a soda. Of course, what he really wanted was obvious since he called Ford’s testimony “raw and credible.”
The bias was so bad all week that conventional media spin was shoved aside and countless smaller examples of a craven media culture went largely ignored. One such example is The New York Times apologizing for asking readers if they found Ford’s “testimony credible.” This is the woke era, and even the most liberal paper in America can’t ask such blasphemous questions.
The terrifying subtext of all this was apparent in many media outlets. Watergate liberal journalist Carl Bernstein told CNN that the U.S. is “in a cold civil war.” The combination of the Russia probe and the current court fight are "almost the Gettysburg and Antietam” of this war, he said.
Axios AM didn’t sound more optimistic, quoting a Republican insider saying: “What ugly times. We may be doomed." It explained that Democrats were already talking about impeaching both President Trump and Kavanaugh. “So the United States of America will be three-for-three in diminished trust in its branches of government,” it concluded.
The liberal media can take a lot of credit for that.
2. Hollywood Did Its Part: The stars were unwilling to cede all of the despicable comments to the news media. Jimmy Kimmel, who made his career by being a notorious creep, has now remade his career as a defender of women. Kimmel proposed a “compromise” to get Kavanaugh on the court, “in return, we get to cut that pesky penis of his off in front of everyone.”
The rest of the comments were a mixture of stupidity, hate and marketing. Woke actor John Cusack called the GOP a “deathkkult.” Actress America Ferrera compared the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing to a “prequel to ‘The Handmaid's Tale,’” claiming Republicans “will take away our rights.”
Actor Jim Carrey bashed conservatives as “ENTITLED LITTLE S---- like Injustice Kavanaugh.” (Carrey, has a net worth of $150 million, but he’s not “entitled.”)
3. Media Turned on Its Head: As a measure how bad the media were this past week, “Morning Joe” host Joe Scarborough on MSNBC was one of the most prominent voices of reason.
Scarborough and his co-host/fiancee Mika Brzezinski were remarkably rational. On Tuesday, Scarbrough suggested outlets “put a (D) in front of the name of the so-called journalists that have already decided that Brett Kavanaugh is a rapist.” On Thursday, Brzezinski defended Kavanaugh’s fiery testimony, saying, “not being angry would not seem natural."
They weren’t the only ones. CNN legal analyst Paul Callan concluded, “the verdict of the Senate should be that his nomination is confirmed.”
CNN “New Day” anchor Alisyn Camerota criticized the allegations that came through anti-Trump lawyer Michael Avenatti, saying some “frankly strain credulity.” That’s an understatement.
Scarborough was similarly critical of the third complainant, asking the simple question: “Who would continually go to high school parties where women were being gang raped?”

Kavanaugh accuser Julie Swetnick faced own misconduct allegations at past job with tech firm: reports

Julie Swetnick, who became the third woman to accuse Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, faced her own misconduct allegations 18 years ago, according to reports.  (Associated Press)

The third woman to accuse Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct faced "inappropriate conduct" allegations of her own during her brief employment with an Oregon tech firm, according to reports.
In a lawsuit filed in 2000, Portland-based Webtrends alleged that Julie Swetnick, 55, falsely claimed to be a Johns Hopkins University alum and fabricated her prior work experience, the Oregonian reported.
The company voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit after a month.
Swetnick’s attorney, Michael Avenatti, called the case “completely bogus.”

“This lawsuit never had any merit as evidenced by how quickly it was dismissed," Avenatti told the paper in an email. "It was originally filed in retaliation for my client making claims against the company."
Swetnick worked for the company off-site for a few months in 2000 as a professional services engineer, according to the paper.
Allegations laid out against her in the lawsuit include engaging in unwelcome sexually offensive conduct and making false and retaliatory allegations that other co-workers had engaged in inappropriate conduct toward her.
The suit claimed Swetnick engaged in unwelcome sexual innuendo with two male employees at a business lunch with clients present and that she claimed two other co-workers sexually harassed her.
Webtrends, a web analytics company, determined Swetnick acted inappropriately but could not prove the allegations against her co-workers.
“Based on its investigations, Webtrends determined that Swetnick had engaged in inappropriate conduct, but that no corroborating evidence existed to support Swetnick’s allegations against her coworkers,” the complaint said.

“Based on its investigations, Webtrends determined that Swetnick had engaged in inappropriate conduct, but that no corroborating evidence existed to support Swetnick’s allegations against her coworkers.”

The Daily Caller reported that Swetnick took a leave of absence during her employment for sinus issues in July 2000 and was given short-term disability payments.
One week after the payments stopped in mid-August, Webtrends received a note from Swetnick’s doctor claiming she suffered a nervous breakdown and needed to take another leave of absence.
Weeks later, the company was informed that she had applied for unemployment benefits in Washington, D.C.
She never explained to Webtrends' human resources staff why she applied for the benefits and claimed they had illegally tried to obtain her privileged medical information.
In 2001, after her employment with the company ended, Swetnick’s ex-boyfriend filed a restraining order against her in Florida, Politico reported.
Richard Vinneccy claimed that Swetnick threatened him and his family after he ended their four-year relationship.
“She was threatening my family, threatening my wife and threatening to do harm to my baby at that time,” Vinneccy told Politico.
"I know a lot about her. She’s not credible at all,” he said. “Not at all.”
Avenatti called Vinneccy’s assertions against his client “complete nonsense,” according to the report.
"No truth to this at all," he said.
Swetnick became the third women to accuse Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct. In a sworn statement to a judge, she said Kavanaugh was “verbally abusive toward girls,” a “mean drunk” and would “spike” the punch at high school house parties.
Swetnick added that she remembered seeing Kavanaugh and other boys lined up outside a room at a party, waiting for their “turn” with an inebriated girl.
“In approximately 1982, I became the victim of one of these ‘gang’ or ‘train’ rapes where Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh were present,” Swetnick says in her statement, though she didn't explicitly accuse Kavanaugh of assaulting her. “During the incident, I was incapacitated without my consent and unable to fight off the boys raping me. I believe I was drugged using Quaaludes or something similar placed in what I was drinking.”
On Thursday the White House instructed the FBI to question two women who have alleged sexual misconduct by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
But the parameters of the new and limited FBI probe don’t include interviewing Swetnick, according to a report on Saturday in the Wall Street Journal.
Fox News' Jeffrey Rubin contributed to this story.

Trump blasts NBC story, says FBI should interview 'whoever they deem appropriate' in Kavanaugh probe

President Trump on Saturday evening clarified the parameters for an FBI investigation he ordered into the sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh.
Previous media reports said the FBI probe would be limited in how many accusers the agency would interview regarding Kavanaugh’s past – but the president wrote Saturday that he had placed no such barriers on investigators.
Trump’s message, tweeted after his “Make America Great Again” rally in Wheeling, W. Va., targeted a report by NBC News, though the Wall Street Journal had reported a similar story.
“NBC News incorrectly reported (as usual) that I was limiting the FBI investigation of Judge Kavanaugh, and witnesses, only to certain people,” the president wrote. “Actually, I want them to interview whoever they deem appropriate, at their discretion. Please correct your reporting!”
The president’s message, however, did not address the timeframe of about a week that the FBI had been given to complete its “supplemental investigation,” ordered in the wake of Thursday’s Senate Judiciary Committee testimony by accuser Christine Blasey Ford and Judge Kavanaugh.
NBC and the Journal had reported Saturday that a White House official had stated that the FBI would investigate the claims against Kavanaugh made by accusers Ford and Deborah Ramirez, but would not examine the claims made by Julie Swetnick, who like the others had asserted that Kavanaugh engaged in sexual misconduct during his high school years.
Neither Ramirez nor Swetnick participated in Thursday’s hearing on Capitol Hill.
But Trump’s statement late Saturday suggested that FBI personnel face no restrictions against interviewing Swetnick – or any other person they deemed relevant to the accusations against Kavanaugh.
Earlier, White House spokesman Raj Shah also contradicted the claims of limits on the FBI that were attributed to an unnamed White House official.
“The scope and duration has been set by the Senate," Shah told Fox News. "The White House is letting the FBI agents do what they are trained to do.”

"The White House is letting the FBI agents do what they are trained to do.”
- Raj Shah, White House spokesman

Following the president’s late-Saturday tweet, NBC News reported Trump’s reaction to the network’s earlier story, and stipulated that the president had given the FBI “free rein” to conduct the investigation as it sees fit.
"Whatever it is they do, they’ll be doing — things that we never even thought of. And hopefully at the conclusion everything will be fine,” the president said, according to NBC.

"Whatever it is they do, they’ll be doing — things that we never even thought of. And hopefully at the conclusion everything will be fine.”
- President Trump

The previous reports on the possible exclusion of Swetnick had angered her attorney, Michael Avenatti, the same lawyer who represents porn star Stormy Daniels in her claims against President Trump.
“If true, this is outrageous," Avenatti tweeted Saturday afternoon. "Why are Trump and his cronies in the Senate trying to prevent the American people from learning the truth? Why do they insist on muzzling women with information submitted under penalty of perjury? Why Ramirez but not my client?”
Later, Avenatti tweeted: “Trump has now determined that he and he alone will be the sole arbiter of whether a woman’s claims of sexual assault and misogyny are credible. Why even have an FBI investigation? I thought it was their job to make this determination. He and Kavanaugh are afraid of the truth.”
But President Trump’s tweet Saturday evening, placing the FBI fully in charge of the supplemental investigation, appeared to contradict Avenatti’s assertion.

Jeff Flake Cartoons

Kimberly Strassel: A vote against Kavanaugh is a vote for ambush tactics and against due process

America can thank Jeff Flake for the continued circus on capital hill.

The Ford-Kavanaugh hearing consumed most of Thursday, and unsurprisingly we learned nothing from the spectacle. Christine Ford remains unable to marshal any evidence for her claim of a sexual assault. Brett Kavanaugh continues to deny the charge adamantly and categorically, and with persuasive emotion.
Something enormous nonetheless has shifted over the past weeks of political ambushes, ugly threats and gonzo gang-rape claims. In a Monday interview, Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski noted: “We are now in a place where it’s not about whether or not Judge Kavanaugh is qualified.” Truer words were never spoken. Republicans are now voting on something very different and monumental—and they need to be clear on the stakes.
To vote against Judge Kavanaugh is to reject his certain, clear and unequivocal denial that this event ever happened. The logical implication of a “no” vote is that a man with a flawless record of public service lied not only to the public but to his wife, his children and his community. Any Republican who votes against Judge Kavanaugh is implying that he committed perjury in front of the Senate, and should resign or be impeached from his current judicial position, if not charged criminally. As Sen. Lindsey Graham said: “If you vote ‘no,’ you are legitimizing the most despicable thing I have seen in my time in politics.”
The stakes go beyond Judge Kavanaugh. A “no” vote now equals public approval of every underhanded tactic deployed by the left in recent weeks. It’s a green light to send coat hangers and rape threats to Sen. Susan Collins and her staff. It is a sanction to the mob that drove Sen. Ted Cruz and his wife out of a restaurant. It is an endorsement of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who kept the charge secret for weeks until she could use it to ambush the nominee with last-minute, unverified claims. It’s approval of the release of confidential committee material (hello, Spartacus), the overthrow of regular Senate order, and Twitterrule. It’s authorization for a now thoroughly unprofessional press corps to continue crafting stories that rest on anonymous accusers and that twist innuendo into gang rapes. A vote against Brett Kavanaugh is a vote for Michael Avenatti. No senator can hide from this reality. There is no muddy middle.

Bill Maher attacks Lindsey Graham for defending Kavanaugh, says senator needs 'his dead boyfriend' John McCain

HBO’s Bill Maher lashed out at Sen. Lindsey Graham on Friday for his defense of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, saying the South Carolina Republican was missing “the stabilizing influence of his dead boyfriend,” meaning the late Sen. John McCain.
Maher, host of “Real Time with Bill Maher,” took shots at Graham multiple times -- for example, saying in his opening monologue that the senator was “familiar” with the “back door.”
“The fact that Trump can either find people like him or make him … Lindsey Graham needs the stabilizing influence of his dead boyfriend,” Maher said later, in reference to McCain, who died Aug. 25 at age 81.
Maher went on to decry Graham’s fiery support for Kavanaugh as a “performance” and that he may be eyeing on a cabinet position within the Trump administration.
Graham stood out during Thursday's hearings of Kavanaugh and Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, who accused the judge of sexual assault over 36 years ago. He gave perhaps one of the most impassioned speeches in defense of Kavanaugh, accusing the Democrats of trying to destroy the Supreme Court nominee with “the most unethical sham since I've been in politics.”
“What you want to do is destroy this guy’s life, hold this seat open, and hope you win in 2020,” Graham told Senate Judiciary Democrats. “Boy, y’all want power and I hope you don’t get it.”
Maher also accused Kavanaugh of “acting” during the hearing, with one of his guests, CNN commentator April Ryan, saying Kavanaugh spoke only to please President Trump.
“He was rehearsed. He talked about the press, he talked about the Clintons,” Ryan said. “He was too rehearsed. He was so bombastic.”
Maher went on to claim that Kavanaugh lied that his 10-year-old daughter prayed for his accuser.
“That’s what actors do!” Maher said when talking about Kavanaugh barely holding back the tears during his opening statement to the committee. “They make s--- up!”

USA Today hit piece says Kavanaugh should 'stay off basketball courts when kids are around'

Judge Brett Kavanaugh with his daughter's basketball team, which he coaches. 

You can give thanks to people like GOP's Jeff Flake for the USA Today hit piece.

USA Today got slammed on social media after publishing an “evil” article saying Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh should stay away from coaching girls’ basketball because of sexual assault allegations.

“The U.S. Senate may yet confirm Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, but he should stay off basketball courts for now when kids are around,” reads the article by a staff sportswriter.

From @usatodaysports: "The U.S. Senate may yet confirm Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, but he should stay off basketball courts for now when kids are around," writes @ByErikBrady . https://t.co/MJ9ZIZExGI

— USA TODAY (@USATODAY) September 29, 2018

The report, which was presented as a news story rather than an opinion article, focused on Thursday’s dramatic testimony by Kavanaugh, who said the mere allegations ruined his reputation and that it could mean he will never be able to coach a girls' basketball team again.
“I love coaching more than anything I’ve ever done in my whole life,” Kavanaugh said in his opening statement. “But thanks to what some of you on this side of the committee have unleashed, I may never be able to coach again.”

"I love coaching more than anything I’ve ever done in my whole life. But thanks to what some of you on this side of the committee have unleashed, I may never be able to coach again."

- Brett Kavanaugh

Thousands of social media users slammed the article’s insinuation.

This is a truly evil piece.

— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) September 29, 2018

“This is a truly evil piece,” tweeted Charles Cooke, editor of the conservative National Review magazine.
“Irresponsible, inflammatory, foolhardy, opprobrious and thoughtless article serving no purpose than to further add contempt to someone's name who has not been proven guilty of any crime,” wrote a Twitter user, joining the choir of more than 7,000 overwhelmingly negative comments on social media.
Michael Brown, a former undersecretary of Homeland Security, said the outlet uses allegations from more than 30 years ago, “in essence to call someone a pedophile.”

Let me get this straight @USATODAY...you believe uncorroborated allegations from 30+ years ago allow in essence to call someone a pedophile? #Kavanaugh claims the media will continue to attack him and you just proved his point. Despicable. https://t.co/r22iTIqBfS

— Michael Brown (@MichaelBrownUSA) September 29, 2018

“Let me get this straight @USATODAY... you believe uncorroborated allegations from 30+ years ago allow in essence to call someone a pedophile? Kavanaugh claims the media will continue to attack him and you just proved his point. Despicable,” he wrote.
The USA Today story went on to proclaim that “the nation is newly vigilant on who coaches and trains its children given recent scandals in gymnastics and other sports,” but notes that Kavanaugh is free to continue coaching in the Catholic Youth Organization and his daughters’ private school in Washington because he passed all background checks.
Edward McFadden, spokesman for the Archdiocese of Washington, told the outlet that “adult volunteers with extensive contact with children” undergo extensive background checks. A coach would have to be convicted before he gets banned from coaching children.
But despite that, the report ends with the call that “credibly accused sex offenders should not coach youth basketball, girls or boys, without deeper investigation.”

Tucker: Jeff Flake Is 'Ringmaster of the Partisan Circus' After Calling for Kavanaugh FBI Probe

Tucker Carlson on Friday declared Sen. Jeff Flake the "ringmaster of the partisan circus" after the lawmaker called for an FBI investigation into Brett Kavanaugh.
Flake (R-Ariz.) had voted to send Kavanaugh's Supreme Court nomination to the full Senate.
He said before the vote, in agreement with Democrats, that he'd be calling for a one-week delay to allow the FBI to investigate the sexual misconduct claims against the nominee.
President Trump subsequently ordered the bureau to conduct the "supplemental" probe at the request of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
"Jeff Flake crumbled," Carlson said, noting that Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) commended Flake for rising above "the partisan circus on display."

Moonbeam Brown California Cartoons

Gregg Jarrett: At Kavanaugh hearing, Democrats' outrageous conduct victimizes him, Ford and all Americans

If Judge Brett Kavanaugh was not telling the truth Thursday at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on his nomination to the Supreme Court, he is one of America’s greatest actors. 
The emotion Kavanaugh evinced during the hearing cannot be feigned. When it finally spilled out, it was real and raw. His justifiable anger at being falsely accused of sexually assaulting Professor Christine Blasey Ford when both were teenagers some 36 years ago was palpable.
“I swear today, under oath, before the Senate and the nation, before my family, and God, I am innocent of this charge,” Kavanaugh said.   
Most people who are grievously wronged react with outrage. In his statement and testimony, Kavanaugh expressed such righteous indignation. His defense of himself was forceful and convincing.  
Kavanaugh’s core message was both conciliatory and compelling.
“I don’t question that Dr. Ford was sexually assaulted at some time and at some place, but it was not me,” Kavanaugh said.
Kavanaugh emphasized that none of the people identified by Ford as attending a party – where Ford claims a drunken Kavanaugh got on top of her on a bed, tried unsuccessfully to take off her clothes and covered her mouth to stifle her screams – corroborate the accusations leveled against him. 
Kavanaugh also firmly denied claims by three other women not at the hearing that he was guilty of sexual misconduct. Like Ford, those women have presented not a shred of corroborating evidence or any other witnesses to back up their claims against the judge. One accusation came from an anonymous person who claimed to be the mother of another woman and is so weak that it can’t even be seriously considered. 
In support of his denial of Ford’s allegations, Kavanaugh offered a meticulous calendar he kept in 1982. It served as a remarkably convincing piece of evidence showing he could not have been the teenage boy who attacked Ford.
Significantly, the calendar shows that the then-17-year-old Kavanaugh was out of town nearly every weekend of the summer when Ford claims he attacked her at a house party in Maryland, just outside Washington.
For the two weekends Kavanaugh spent at home, his whereabouts were accounted for. His weekdays were equally accounted for.

Kavanaugh laid bare the partisan motivations of Democrats for ruining his reputation and destroying his family. He condemned their actions for transforming the Senate confirmation process into “a national disgrace” and “replacing advise and consent with search and destroy.”

These records clearly reflect that there were no house parties involving the people Ford said were at the party where she was allegedly attacked. While not dispositive evidence, the calendar is highly persuasive. Why would young Kavanaugh have noted all his other activities on the calendar but for some reason left off the party?
Ford also told a credible story. During her testimony, she seemed authentic and sincere. However, when two people tell different and conflicting stories, the benefit of the doubt must always go to the accused. This is consistent with an important principle by which our democracy abides both inside and outside the courtroom: the presumption of innocence.
Fundamental fairness and due process demand every accused person receive a presumption of innocence. If it did not exist, America would be a police state, where the government could accuse any of us of any crime and convict us without evidence. The liberty and freedom of each and every one of us would be endangered.
Try a thought experiment and think back to your own high school years. Imagine if someone came forward tomorrow and accused you of criminal activity long ago. How could you possibly prove you did not engage in such conduct?
Sadly, decency has eluded these proceedings against an superbly qualified judge who has been repeatedly investigated by the FBI for high-level positions in the White House and elsewhere, including for the past 12 years as a judge on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Choking back tears, Kavanaugh – a deeply religious man – recounted how his youngest daughter, Liza, wanted to pray for Ford. “That’s a lot of wisdom for a 10-year-old,” the judge observed. Senators could learn a thing or two from a 10-year-old.
Kavanaugh justifiably heaped scorn on Senate Democrats for what was he described as a “smear” and “character assassination,” pointing out correctly that they revealed the allegations against him by Ford only when his confirmation seemed assured.
Kavanaugh laid bare the partisan motivations of Democrats for ruining his reputation and destroying his family. He condemned their actions for transforming the Senate confirmation process into “a national disgrace” and “replacing advise and consent with search and destroy.”
At times, questioning resembled a theater of the absurd as some clueless Democratic senators like Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut implied that cryptic references to drinking in Kavanaugh’s high school yearbook were somehow incriminating evidence of attempted rape. That’s so ridiculous as to be laughable. 
More than anyone, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., is responsible for this abomination.
Feinstein knew of Ford’s allegations for the better part of two months. Yet she concealed the professor’s claims about Kavanaugh until after Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing had ended. The hearing was reopened to give Ford a chance to testify, out of respect for her and a sincere effort get to the truth.
Feinstein could have – and should have – brought Ford’s accusations against Kavanaugh to the attention of the Judiciary Committee without revealing the accuser’s identity. Committee staffers could have questioned Ford in a private and confidential manner, allowing a more orderly investigation to take place.
Feinstein’s explanations for her actions in refusing to disclose Ford’s claims are nothing more than vacuous excuses.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., was right to strongly chastise Feinstein at Thursday’s hearing for hiding Ford’s accusations.
“I hope the American people can see through this sham – that you knew about it and you held it,” Graham told Feinstein. “You had no intention of protecting Dr. Ford, none! She’s as much of a victim as you are,” Graham said as he pointed to Judge Kavanaugh.
But Graham wasn’t done.
“If you wanted an FBI investigation you could have come to us,” Graham told Feinstein. “What you want to do is destroy this guy’s life, hold this seat open and hope you win in 2020,” referring to Democratic hopes to capture the White House in two years.
Graham then criticized all the Democratic senators on the Judiciary Committee.
“I would never do to them what you’ve done to this guy,” Graham said. “This is the most unethical sham since I’ve been in politics. If you really wanted to know the truth, you sure as hell wouldn’t have done what you did to this guy.”
The plain truth is that it didn’t matter who President Trump nominated to fill the existing vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court. The president could have nominated a saint and Democrats would have done everything humanly possible to stop the nominee from being confirmed. No shameful tactic would have been spared.
Both Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford are the victims of the outrageous conduct by Senate Democrats. And so are the American people.
Gregg Jarrett joined FOX News Channel (FNC) in 2002 and is based in New York. He currently serves as legal analyst and offers commentary across both FNC and FOX Business Network (FBN).