Prior to September 13th, America was witness to a process that may well have been classified as confirmation hearings – but on the date in question, it became a very aggressive, confrontational and very public trial. On the date in question, when Dianne Feinstein sent her infamous “I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court” letter, a single confirmation process morphed into what essentially became two trials.

There was the visible trial of defendant Bret Kavanaugh due to the 36-year-old unsupported and uncorroborated accusations of sexual assault levied by Christine Blasey Ford and the one roiling just under the surface for the defendants, the Judiciary Committee Democrats, due to their handling of these same accusations that Ranking Member Feinstein had hand delivered to her on July 30, 2018.

One could convincingly argue that over the past two weeks, the most common word used in breathless media reports and falling from Democrat mouths was “credibility”. It is likely that a Lexis-Nexis search of articles and transcripts of interviews would support this hypothesis. The importance of that word is that, due to the total absence of any evidence or witness support of the accusations, we are asked to make a judgement based on credibility alone.

So, let’s do that.

Let’s judge the outcome of both trials using the same standard.

Let’s first have a definition of “credible” and stipulate to a few things. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “credible” as “Worthy of belief; entitled to credit.” We should also understand that being credible does NOT equate to being honest or truthful. It is also important to understand that liars can tell credible stories – successful con men tell credible stories and they are not honest or truthful. The gist of all this is that being credible does not mean being truthful, and that there are many mechanisms active in deciding if a person or story is “worthy of belief” and these mechanisms are not necessarily based on facts or evidence – often credibility is based on emotional characteristics, i.e. sympathy or empathy for the person. Americans have an innate desire to assign credibility to the weak or the hurt. We love and protect the underdog.

As to the first trial, the matter of Christine Blasey Ford v. Bret Kavanaugh, I found Ford credible but her story incredible. I have no doubt Ford believes her own story – that’s how you beat a polygraph – you employ the Costanza Rule, if you believe it, it isn’t a lie. Ford told a compelling story of sexual assault, one that only the hardest of hearts would dismiss; however, her story was all anecdotal with no corroboration – even from the people she named as participants or witnesses. Her parents and siblings did not sign on to any letters of support and there have been no people coming forward to even say “Hey, I remember that party – I didn’t know anything happened, but I remember the gathering.”

Needless to say, I found Kavanaugh credible AND his story credible. I didn’t do so because I want to see him confirmed – and for the record, I do – I did so based on the mountain of evidence of his public career and the testimonies about his private life. I also must consider the absence of evidence relating to similar behaviors of those Blasey Ford alleges. People have stated under penalty of law that they have no recollection of such parties or of Kavanaugh being at one with Ford.

So, in an objective comparison – Kavanaugh for the win.
As to the second trial, the Democrats claim they are not politically motivated, not biased, aren’t trying to delay and are only interested in fairness, so let’s examine the credibility of the ten Democrats – Spartacus, Crazie Mazie, the Crazy Ex-Girlfriend and the Seven Other Mental Dwarfs.

• President Trump nominates Judge Bret Kavanaugh to fill the seat of retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy on July 9, 2018
• As early as July 10th, a majority of the Democrats – Blumenthal, Harris, Booker and Hirono among them, publicly state they will oppose Kavanaugh and he has no place on the Supreme Court.
• Feinstein received Ford’s letter directly from California Congresswomen Anna Eshoo on July 30.
• Feinstein had an obligation to turn the letter over to the Judiciary Committee for disposition and inclusion in the FBI background investigation of Kavanaugh and yet she did not.
• Feinstein and Eshoo communicated with and advised Ford as to lawyers and representatives without informing the Republicans on the Committee.
• Even though they claim they didn’t, since the Feinstein and Eshoo were the only custodians of the letter, it is extremely likely that they or some of their staff, leaked the information to the Washington Post.
• Ford lives in Santa Cruz and given her political sympathies and academic career, it is very likely the “beach friends” who advised her include some Democrats of note who are connected at both the state and federal level.
• Feinstein sprung this letter and the accusations it contained AFTER the hearings were closed by sending it to the FBI.
• Now, after holding the information for roughly 6 weeks, they claim they want more time to “investigate”.

As to the matter of America v. Judiciary Committee Democrats, I find in favor of the plaintiff. The Democrats are not credible, and neither is the story they tell.

Neither the Democrats nor the story their star witness tells are credible – Kavanaugh should already be seated on the courts.