Unverifiable Accusations And The Hypocrisy Of The Left

The big question on the media's minds these days deals with the credibility of Brett Kavanaugh's accuser, with most siding with her already. But does that question actually matter? Andrew Klavan says "no" – and he explained why on Thursday's episode of “The Andrew Klavan Show.”

“Why are we even talking about that when the entire thing is politics? It is all politics, a genuinely despicable thing,” Klavan said. “If this guy gets on the Supreme Court, forever after they have put this completely, utterly, entirely unfair asterisk by his name the way they have with Clarence Thomas, completely unfairly, so that anything he does, any decision he makes they have tarred this good man's name. It really is despicable.”

Video and transcript below:

If [Kavanaugh] is confirmed to the Supreme Court, [the Democrats] will forever after have tarred this guy's name with a completely unprovable, unfalsifiable, unverifiable charges from 35-36 years ago from when he was a teenager.

We're sitting around, and we're saying: Oh, you know, did he do it? If he did do it is it really that bad? Do we forgive him?

Why are we even talking about that when the entire thing is politics? It is all politics, a genuinely despicable thing. If this guy gets on the Supreme Court, forever after they have put this completely, utterly, entirely unfair asterisk by his name the way they have with Clarence Thomas, completely unfairly, so that anything he does, any decision he makes they have tarred this good man's name. It really is despicable.

Again, this is not an attack on the accuser, she may have a false memory, she may not have a false memory, I have no idea. The point is, there is no way to know, and if there is no way to know – you're a senator of the United States – if there's no way to know, you do not bring it up, it is just not right.

If there were a hundred women out there all saying the same thing, I would feel differently about this – although you can always collect a hundred people who are willing to lie about somebody – but still, all this talk about "oh, you know, I believe her, she looks honest, she seems honest." I don't care, I don't care – there's no way to prove it, plenty of people can look credible. I don't know anything about her, nobody has said anything nasty about her, I don't mean to say anything nasty about her, I just don't know, and so it is therefore inherently wrong to do this to a person.

I want to start by playing a clip of Joy Behar, I would not play this if I just thought it was her, it was this awful Joy Behar, but I think this is representative of the entire Democrat Party and the Left in general. Here is her attacking Kavanaugh, just to show you the way they're treating this guy at this point:

Joy Behar: “These people in Congress right now and that Senate Judiciary Committee, these white men – old by the way – are not protecting women. They're protecting a man who is probably guilty, if you're not, Judge Kavanaugh, take the lie detector test. Prove it the way she did, and the way Anita Hill did, that they were not lying, let's see that from you. Or are you a coward?"

By the way – just so you know – being old, or white, or male is not a bad thing, I'm all three and she can go to hell. But let's go back to 2016 – this is two years ago – this isn't back in the Clinton era, this is two years ago when Hillary Clinton was running. Listen to what [Behar] said then about Teddy Kennedy:

Joy Behar: "Remember Chappaquiddick? Am I the oldest person in the room? A girl drowns and he abandons her, and women still voted for Teddy Kennedy. Why? because he voted for women's rights, that's why. That's the bottom line of it, in my opinion. I mean, I don't like either one of them to tell you the truth, Teddy or Bill. They're both dogs as far as I'm concerned, but I still will vote for Bill Clinton because he votes in my favor."

But that's all of them, that is all of them! That is Dianne Feinstein, that is every single one of the Democrats and the Left, and all the people on Twitter posing there with their feminist poses, they're all the same way. It is just about the power, it is just about the decisions. There was Joy Behar – that is as brash, as brilliantly painted, as bright a picture of hypocrisy as you were ever going to see. I say this to you with a straight face and I mean it, every one of them is Joy Behar in this case.

So, let's just bring this up to date. Chuck Grassley, the head of the confirmation committee, is talking to Kavanaugh deciding whether to pass it on to the full Senate. He has now gotten tough, they invited her to come and testify, and all the Left said: We have to hear her out! So, they said come on Monday. Then the Left said: You can't hear her out, what's wrong with you? You can't do that! So, Grassley has now said that she's got to get in, he really sent a tough letter saying: "this is but the latest and most serious of the Democrats side's abuse of the confirmation process. There has been delay and obstruction of this process at every turn and with every argument available, therefore I will view any additional complaints about the process very skeptically" and he gave her till Friday to get her prepared testimony in or they will hold the vote on Wednesday.

Here is Senator Gillibrand, who was a big Clinton supporter so she has nothing to say about this, but she's now a big #MeToo supporter because that's the way the wind is blowing, this is her responding to this:

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand: "I don't think she should be bullied into this scenario where it's a he-said she-said, where many members of the committee have already made up their minds without the benefit of an FBI investigation where it's nonpartisan, and objective, and without the benefit of corroborating witnesses being able to testify, it's a sham hearing. I don't think she should participate in it."

But it can only be he said she said, this is why all of this is bogus, it's all bogus, it can only be he said, she said 36 years later, when the accuser says she doesn't remember the day, she doesn't remember the place, what questions are the FBI gonna ask? "35 years ago did you go to a party? 36 years ago, were you a teen at a party that I'm not sure where or when, that something may have happened, we don't know what?" How can you investigate that?

The FBI refused to investigate because they can't investigate it! The Senate has its own investigators who were put there. All of this is about one thing; it is making sure that if you don't tow the leftist line you have to be afraid, because they do not believe in diversity of thought, they do not believe that there could be another side, it is their side and hatefulness.

Watch more of The Andrew Klavan Show here.

Listen to more of The Andrew Klavan Show on iTunes here.

 
 
 

What's Your Reaction?