Brett Kavanaugh: Justice Delivered

Brett Kavanaugh: Justice Delivered

Brett Kavanaugh: Justice Delivered

Brett Kavanaugh is finally a member of the U.S. Supreme Court. The only thing sweeter than hearing the rending of garments and the lamentations of pussyhatted females and the male Leftists who direct them (savor the irony in that!) …

… is to have President Trump direct the DOJ to start an investigation into the conspiracy of Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee to bring false charges against Brett Kavanaugh.

This must never happen again.

If you believe in the Constitution, rule of law, due process, presumption of innocence and rules of evidence, then you cannot vote for any Democrat at any level this November. The Democratic Reprobate Party must pay a dear and lasting price for subverting normative American principles for party power.

There is time to help out Republican candidates — in your city, county and state. I’m in the deep blue state of California, but I’m going to work for any non-Democrat candidate on the ballot.
featured image original illustration by Darleen Click

Written by

  • Dianne Feinstein should be censured at the least and,better, expelled from the Senate.

    • FretlessT says:

      She’ll be gone after November.

      Google Kevin De Leon to see what follows. (And note that, like “Beto” in Texas, he’s even ashamed of his own name!)

    • Matt_SE says:

      All California Republicans have the chance to punish her. They’re going to get a Democrat no matter what they do, so why not vote for her opponent? I have to believe that’s a great many votes against her.

    • John C Stephens says:

      Removing Dianne Feinstein from the Senate would actually be counterproductive, her replacement would be far worse.

      • Darleen Click says:

        I struggle with this because Kevin [de] Leon is such a leftwing whackjob! However, as a newbie to the Senate he wouldn’t have the power of committee appointments at DiFi currently holds.

        That has to be a consideration.

      • nuthinmuffin says:

        but they would be pushed far down the ladder…they would not be leading any committees

      • Sue says:

        Since we have only those 2 choices does not voting for either send any message?

    • Izapole says:

      She is running against a further to the left leftie in the general. She should be done.

    • Thanh Nguyen says:

      Sen. Dianne Feinstein has to pay her hate.

    • frank becktol says:

      you are so right @ least make note of action that it will not just be swept under the rug and be forgotten as all “demorats” this is on purpose, actions are.

  • Dave Hunter says:

    How is the president going to get Sessionzzz to open an investigation? Multiple referrals for prosecution have been made by Grassley and others without any result. Further, you can see the corruption in the FBI and DOJ in the case of James Wolfe, former Director of Security for the Senate Intel Committee. He has only been charged with lying to the FBI, not for mishandling classified material which he clearly and unequivocally did. President Trump and the Congress need to hit the “delete” key on the FBI and start over. Christopher Wray and Rod Rosenstein were his two worst appointments of all time.

    • Blackgriffin says:

      Jeff Sessions needs to go. I actually forget about his existence until someone brings him up, that’s how much of a nonentity he’s been since his appointment.

      • agesilaus says:

        Federal legislators are immune to prosecution for any thing they say on the floor of the senate or house. Why do you think they do it?

  • Sandra Lueder says:

    I hope the Republicans stand firm on this investigation. No more Mr. or Ms. Nice Guy. This despicable behavior cannot be allowed to happen again.

  • Doug says:

    I wish people would place this in its actual perspective. What the events in the Senate Judiciary Committee merely made graphic the rise of the sentiment for group justice – kind of like what the Brown Shirts thought should be applied to Jews in Weimar Germany. It’s not an assault on the Constitution; it’s an assault on societal standards of justice and fair play for individuals.

    It is better to ask: “What would it take for Ford’s story to be incredible?” This is a straightforward test. Credibility of every story benefits from others who perceived the same thing. Ten unrelated people saying that a National Guard shot a student at Kent State makes any one version more credible. This is one form of corroboration. Another, lesser , form of corroboration is known as a “prior consistent statement”. In other words, perhaps the witness to the Kent State shooting did not report to the authorities at the time but wrote a letter a day later to a family member laying out the details. In a fight over whether the witness was present and saw the event at a trial years later, this letter would serve to corroborate the witness’s testimony for obvious reasons if that testimony were challenged. Lack of corroboration makes a witness less credible.

    Other aspects of a witness can make a story less credible. For example, a witness who destroys potential evidence typically is viewed as a less credible witness and the story the less credible as well. Similarly, inconsistencies in a story can make the witness and the witness’s story less credible. I fault the media for characterizing Mitchell as “chipping away” at Ford’s story; that’s a time honored means of getting at credibility. Inconsistencies provide reasons to doubt a version of events. Bias can make a witness and her testimony less credible. So too can obviously false statements. Sen. Blumenthal had it right with his Latin adage. He merely was a flawed messenger.

    Ford had unbelievable issues with her story on all these fronts. She had no corroborating witness. People she said were present and would corroborate her did not. Her so-called best friend denied even knowing Brett Kavanaugh. That’s a major blow to a story that the two went to a party with others they knew. She also had no prior consistent statement. The 2012 statement recorded by the therapist in a “couples session” did not name Kavanaugh and had other information that was inconsistent with her story. In particular, it stated a time when the two could not have attended such a party. Moreover, Ford testified that the “couples session” resulted from her husband’s inability to empathize with her need for a second front door on their house. However, public records reflect that the door was installed years earlier and was used by renters as a separate entrance. There are substantial reasons to doubt Ford’s reason for going to the therapist, whose records she has only selectively released. Ford deleted her social media content before news of her became public. Did this media evidence a pre-existing bias, even admissions that Ford was determined to do whatever it took to prevent Kavanaugh from taking a position on the Supreme Court? We will never know, but the law recognizes explicitly that destruction of potential evidence supplies reason to infer the worst. She said that she did not want to go public, but did not take up the SJC’s offer to question her in California. She laid this off to not knowing of the offer, which was publicly proclaimed in every media outlet in teh nation. Her legal team announced that she was afraid to fly and therefore would not come to D.C. immediately to speak with the Committee. This clearly wasn’t true; she flies all the time. Anyone would infer from these statements that she sought an excuse to meet for weeks with lawyers and politicians. Moreover, the details concerning the house in which this event allegedly occurred seemed to shift as inconsistencies in each location and floor plan were raised.

    There were many other issues from other quarters, but the ones listed above were inherent issues intrinsic to what she said at different times and the lack of third party or other corroboration. What else would it take to make her story incredible? Anyone who takes Ford’s side needs to explain that to me.

    The story was the effort of the left to overcome that plethora of inconsistencies with “group justice”. She was a woman. To the left and its demonstrators and senators, her story had credibility apart from its setting and despite its content. In fact, it was credible despite her inability to remember almost any significant detail and lack of any corroboration. In sum and substance, Martin Luther King asked that each individual be judged on the content of his or her character. The threat in what we’ve just seen is to that approach to human society and the individuals in it.

    • GWB says:

      She laid this off to not knowing of the offer, which was publicly proclaimed in every media outlet in teh nation.
      One thing to keep in mind: there is more than one reason to avoid news/media in Ford’s situation. Some involve tainting your testimony, some increasing the trauma.

      It’s entirely possible she did not know about the offer (or some of the other claims made by her lawyers).

      • Doug says:

        Yes, her lawyers may not have told her that what she asked for was extended to her. immediately and that she could have been examined other than in public within two days of becoming known to the public Let one of them say that, and I’ll consider it. For she has yet to evidence the unbelievable anger that she must feel by being been sold out and used for a public hearing if what she wrote and squarely said were true. Can you imagine how you would have reacted if you were sitting before the entire world on a matter you implored be kept confidential and finding out that you could have had it that way –
        that teh offer was extended immediately. Not.One.Word.Of.Criticism. That was a major tell for me in her testimony. But you’ve missed my point. What, exactly, would you insist happen for her story to lack credibility? Not knowing the year and supplying different times in different statements? Giving inconsistent versions of who was present? Giving different versions of the location? Not recalling how you got there? Not recalling how you got home? Having the one girlfriend you said was with you deny knowing Brett Kavanaugh and not recall the alleged event? What about the charge courts give to juries about adverse inferences taken from interfering with prospective evidence? She made certain no one could see her social media which, until the eve of her coming forward apparently was readily available. What, precisely, would have made her story less credible? Why would anyone overlook these elements of the allegations she makes?

  • Russ says:

    “I’m in the deep blue state of California, but I’m going to work for any non-Democrat candidate on the ballot.”

    Somewhere in Texas there is a grassroots organization that goes to where there are close races and volunteers for Republicans. I can’t remember their name, but would that not be more productive? You can give money or make calls from anywhere.

  • Patvann says:

    Doug….That was one of the more concise, and objective comments on this, I’ve ever read. Nice job, thank you.

  • JAL says:

    Not even a (D) dogcatcher.

  • Betty Jay says:

    Doug, I agree with your concise statement. Ford didn’t sound like any sexual attacked person, no credibility at all. Those protesters sounded like insane women who evidently were paid tO make a scene. They had no credibility either.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner