THE SMEAR HAS BECOME THE DEM TACTIC OF CHOICE- Proof below.
In fact, usually these last minute allegations or charges don’t stick, and are ”OFTEN” tossed out of court… but the stink over the candidate and election lingers just long enough for the liberals to get another win based on lies.

Of course some liberal accusations will be true.  But why is it that they always seem to be dug out of the mud only at the last possible and most politically expedient moment?  How is it that the timing is always such that they will most effectively impact an election, appointment or ruin a conservative’s life and reputation?  Are liberal politicians really that lucky?  

WHAT’S REALLY HAPPENING?
To every honest person the answer is obvious.  It’s not what the accused may or may not have done that’s important, it’s not the victim that’s important and it’s not justice that’s important.  The only thing that matters is how can these liberal leaders use the smears to gain or retain power!

SMEAR THE BEST, PROTECT THE WORST… The liberal playbook!
Unfounded, smears are the preferred play of the liberal playbook.  The smears come in a never ending assortment of types and sizes…Heartless! Racist! Sexist!  Rapist! Homophobe!  Criminal!  Thief! Collusion! Traitor!

MAKE THE MOST DESPICABLE CHARGE AND LEAVE IT TO YOU TO DEFEND IT!

CONSIDER… 
I SWEAR YOU RAPED ME!
“You raped me!” Until you prove otherwise you are a pariah!  Pariahs don’t keep jobs, win elections or get confirmed.  Now, until you prove otherwise you are a pariah!  Pariahs don’t keep jobs, win elections or get confirmed.  THAT is the liberal playbook.  It’s what they do… They SMEAR!… and it’s precisely, what they’ve been doing to political opponents for decades!… Trump and Kavanaugh are just the most recent examples…  Is that right? 

HOW DO YOU DEFEND YOURSELF?… If someone accuses you of rape, how do you clear your name?  It’s he said she said.  How do you prove you were never even near this person, especially if they can’t even say when and where it occurred?  How long would clearing your name take?  More to the point, could you?  Proof of innocence is often unattainable because proving a negative is all but impossible.  To the degree it IS possible, it’s never fast or easy.  In fact, the best you can probably do is make a case that it’s highly unlikely that you committed the crime.  The dark shadow of doubt would forever be upon you… Your reputation is forever dead!  That’s what the dems do… Over and over…

CONSIDER, 
How many republican leaders can you think of that were hit with charges of immorality, misconduct, illegality, or even an actual indictment just prior to an important election???  A substantial list is below… 

NOTICE THE HYPOCRISY?
Ever notice?  When the SAME accusations that when alleged of a conservatives put liberals into an apoplectic spin of self-righteous pronouncements of immorality and shouts of “he’s not qualified for office”…  They are always met with “crickets’ if the same or worse is alleged and even proven against one of their own?  Don’t think that happens?  Click here!  How liberals protect their own.

WHY IT HAPPENS:
The left no longer seems to care about right or wrong.  They care only about power at any cost.  They’ve learned that there is no need to win elections when a good smear works just a well.

Remember, proving a NEGATIVE is all but impossible.  That’s why the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the accuser.  The difficulty is magnified 100 fold when the accuser can’t or won’t even say when or where the crime occurred!   Without specifics, the accused can’t even prove his innocence by showing that he was out of town that day or even the week of the crime.  How to defend yourself if not even the date and time is not included in the accusation?… And if only an approximate date is provided the alibi is insufficient and proves nothing.  When the accuser actually testifies, he or she can just say  “I just remembered this happened in the week of… “

WHY THE ACCUSER MUST ALWAYS SPEAK FIRST!
It is impossible to defend an accusation until you really know what it is.
Stunningly, in the Judge Kavanaugh case, the accuser and her attorneys now insists that she be allowed to testify first.  That never happens and there is a reason for it.

Imagine someone accuses YOU of a crime, let’s call it assault.
It’s 35 years after the fact and there is no evidence of it even happening other than a repressed memory from 2012, no witnesses (and those who were supposedly there say it didn’t happen), no statements to friends, no police report, no medical exam, nothing! 

Based on virtually nothing you are now supposed to give your sworn testimony, under oath, under penalty of felony… and YOU have to go first and not fully informed of the accusations?  What can you possibly do or say meaningfully defend yourself against this 35 year old accusation?

NO PROOF OF INNOCENCE ALLOWED
Have an Air Tight Alibi?  So what?  Even if you actually would have an airtight alibi for the crime, you can’t use it because you don’t even know the time or place of the assault so how do you prove you couldn’t have been there?.… 

If you were, at least, provided with the time and place of crime you’d have the chance to prove your innocence and be able to put the entire thing to bed before even the need for trial or hearing.  But when you are given nothing you have nothing.  You were denied access to information that would allow you to defend yourself.   So With information you might be able to prove it wasn’t you.  Without it, all you can do is provide a general unspecific denial.  “I have no clue about this assault.  I didn’t do this nor have I ever engaged in anything like this in my entire life.  (This is basically what Kavanaugh has said).  

QUESTION-  As to the accusations against Kavanaugh, why is it that even STILL, no one  has been allowed to see the entire notes regarding the “recovered memory”?   

After you’ve done your best with your general, unspecific denial, the accuser is free to come in and provide specifics of the assault, salacious emotion evoking details of what you supposedly did, how you did it, etc…

WHAT IF YOU HAVE A GOOD ALIBI?
If still, no date or time is provided, So what?  How do you defend yourself?  If, on the other hand, testimony was provided  that the assault occurred on August 18 about 7pm and you actually had a reasonable but not air tight alibi for that time, you’ll be called not credible because you are conveniently fabricating it.

Don’t get me wrong.  If the accusations are true, whether the accused is to the political right or left, justice should be served and there should be consequences… But the burden of proof must be on the accuser.   There must be more than empty, unverified, unspecific allegations and no precise time or place.  Otherwise, whether by the left or right, any well-timed accusation of any un-provable despicable action becomes sufficient to thwart and/or destroy even the very best candidate or person… 

Is that the country you want to live in?  Such an outcome would be disastrous to the viability of our system of government.  We have to wake up!

WHAT IF A 20 OR 30 YEAR OLD ACCUSATION IS TRUE?
Actual wrongdoing requires consequences.  But, consider the logic…  Assuming the accusations have been brought into the open because of a desire for justice or to prevent similar future harm to others…

Why would the victim wait so long?
Wouldn’t they realize there is a better likelihood of justice and prevention of future harm by getting predators of the streets earlier rather than later?  Wouldn’t it make sense that they would bring these allegations within a year?  Two years?  Five years?  But how do 20 and 30 year delays make any sense? 

And why to the liberals wait so long to bring them to light, even when they’ve known of them for months or even years?!  Why do these decades old allegations ALWAYS seem to surface just prior to an election or important confirmation hearing?  Is that really coincidence??  Are liberals just that lukcy?  Does that seem reasonable?  I don’t think so. 

Because this happen all the time the only reasonable assumption is that the timing of the delays is to ensure there is no time to properly rebut the accusations!  Accusations are fast, simple and powerful things that caste a long dark shadow of doubt until YOU can prove otherwise…. 

SEEKING TRUTH OR PURSUING AN AGENDA?
Kavanaugh is just the most recent in a long line of liberal smears… It might be true… but maybe not?

Ask yourself… Do you or anyone else really believe that the vehement opposition by liberal leaders to Kavanaugh’s confirmation is due to being abhorred by the thought that when 17 he may not have relented quickly enough in his sexual advances?  Or might it be that he represents what they see as dangerous power thwarting, conservative shift on the Supreme Court.  In other words… Pure Politics?

 Judge Kavanaugh–
Unless you are living under a rock, you know some of the story; A brilliant judge with a stellar career who hires virtually only women, coaches girls basketball, a man who in his entire life has never had no hint of impropriety. EVER…  Until Now!

Wow!  Weren’t the Dems Lucky?  Who would have thought that after the Senate hearings were concluded, the final vote set, when it looked like his appointment was final…  another perfectly timed smear would come to light; an allegation of attempted rape, about 36 years ago when he was 17.  Wow… The Dems are so lucky!

It’s possible the allegation is true.  However, the fact is that the “victim” does not remember precisely when or where it happened.  Only that it happened and even then, she didn’t “remembered” it in about 2012 as a repressed memory and even then didn’t remember the name until Kavanaugh had been mentioned by presidential candidate Romney as a possible Supreme Court nominee.

Still, it might be true; but before proceeding with the Crucifixion and destruction of his career, shouldn’t we have something a bit more concrete?  Shouldn’t there be more than an accusation that is bereft of even one verifiable detail or clear memory?  Is such an accusation sufficient to bring one of the most impactful of Senate functions to a screeching halt?  Shouldn’t the possible political motivation, lack of specifics, timing of the accusation and even timing of the “recalled repressed” memory bring into question the veracity of the accusation?   Not to mention the fact that nothing in Kavanaugh’s life suggests that this man would ever have engaged in such an action?

NATURE AND CONSEQUENCES OF THE ACCUSATION
We have a bare 36 year old accusation with no real evidence, the nature of which is sufficient to destroy a man’s life, reputation and career path.  This is an accusation that could and in fact is being used to change the direction of this country by thwarting the will of the electorate who voted specifically in the hopes of seating such an incredibly qualified nominee as Kavanaugh.

WHAT ARE THE FACTS?  WHAT DO WE ACTUALLY KNOW?
IN FAVOR OF Kavanaugh-
We have a man with a stellar career, stellar life, family, a man who has categorically denied ever engaging in such an act and whose life is bereft of any blemishes … other than this 37 year old accusation.

• VERIFIED FACTS REGARDING FORD- An allegation of a 36 year old event that was made by someone who doesn’t remember the specifics.
• She doesn’t remember where it occurred.Or even when it occurred.
• She doesn’t remember how she got home.
• Doesn’t remember who the savior was that must have helped her home.
• Didn’t even remember that it occurred until 2012; and even then only as a repressed memory.  She may actually believe it.  But that still doesn’t mean it’s true. The most tenuous and most dangerous of memories are those that were repressed/recalled.  See https://jacobinmag.com/2018/02/childcare-abuse-sex-offenders-satanic-panic ).
• She and her attorneys have refused to allow anyone to see the full notes from the therapy session; Isn’t that a red flag?  Doesn’t that raise questions of Cherry Picking what they prefer to provide while hiding that which does not support the accusation.  Shouldn’t that bother every honest person?
• It’s reported that in the notes, neither Kavanaugh nor his friend, Judge were even named.  The names were “remembered” later.
• In fairness, she says her therapist made a mistake in not adding the names.  (However, as taking proper notes is one of the most important tools of any therapist, that seems unlikely).
• According to the Washington post her husband said Kavanaugh’s name came up only in discussions in 2012 in which “he recalled that his wife used Kavanaugh’s last name and voiced concern that he– then a federal judge – might one day be nominated to the Supreme Court.”  Although, that certainly does not mean the accusation is false, it does evince a possible political component.
• Those she stated were there when the assault occurred denied having any knowledge of such a thing.
• She never told anyone about it.  Not even close friends.  Then suppressed it for over 30 years.
• Isn’t this strange?…  The note she sent to Senator Feinstein was just released.  Even fonts within the same sentence are inconsistent!  https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/09/whoa-feinstein-finally-releases-christine-ford-letter-font-does-not-match-up/
• All the above does not mean she is lying… but how can it not raise doubts?  Furthermore…
• HOW COULD SHE STILL NOT REMEMBER?
  Do you remember, where you were when 9-11 happened?  I do.
  
• Do you remember where you were when Kennedy was assassinated?  I do.  I was 6 years old sitting on my front porch when my Mom and Dad came out to me in tears and said, “They killed him”.  I remember it like yesterday.

My point?  It’s possible it’s true, that it happened and was repressed.  But now that the repressed memories have come to the surface, how could the memories of such a personal event resurface with such a lack of specificity?… 

Her clarity of detail seems to be magnitudes less than my 56 year old memory of, what to me was, “my mom crying because some guy was shot” Certainly, my mother crying was a big deal…  but nothing as gut wrenching as the unforgettable event she alleges.  How can her memories be so foggy?

• IT’S A FACT:
  The number of these well timed accusations that are eventually shown to be true are ridiculously few.   
  
• And the number eventually proven to be nothing but unfounded or at best highly questionable smears are legion! Below are just a few…

 Just a couple of other relatively recent examples with more below:

Judge Roy Moore-
2017 After winning the Republican primary and as soon as it was too late to replace him with another republican Senatorial candidate, out of the blue the accusation was made that 40 years ago, he had an inappropriate relationship with a minor.  However, it turned out the accuser was less than candid.  She eventually admitted that the year book inscription that implied the truth of her claim… was written by her!  Moore who had been a shoe in, lost the election…

Imagine, after the destruction of Moore, it was a democrat took that senate seat. Ask yourself, even if the allegations actually were true (which is far from certain)… Does anyone really think this was anything other than a last minute political ploy?  Or were the Dems just lucky?… Again.

Judge Bork-
1987 Nominated by Reagan for the Supreme Court in 1987.  Up to that point he was one of the most qualified jurists to have ever been nominated. However, he believed the judge’s roll was to adhere to interpret the laws as written and abide by the constitution.   In other words, his decisions were based on the law as written, not on what he wished it was or what it should be nor based on the outcome he thought was best.  He did not believe in substituting his opinion for that of the lawmakers.  Even if he didn’t like the outcome, His solution was “re-write the law to say what you meant”.

To do otherwise is to substitute his will and opinion for that of the people and the law makers they elected.  Such co-opting of law is not and never has been the place of any judge.  Unfortunately, this is precisely what today’s LIBERAL justices do.  Decide what they want the outcome to be, then “reverse” engineer the result into something that bears no resemblance to the words or legislative intent.  This is why the battle for the Supreme Court is so important.

Bork was not the type of Justice the left wants.  So, of course they embarked on one of the most relentless abhorrent smear attacks in history.  To this day it is referred to as getting “Borked”.  Ultimately, the Liberals won and Judge Bork was not confirmed.

Justice Thomas-
1991 Also nominated by Ronald Reagan for the Supreme Court.  They remembered the success of the Bork nomination.  They learned that SMEARS WORK!.  The bigger the better.  As part of the confirmation process Anita Hill came forward accusing him not of sexual misconduct but inappropriate to obscene statements.  He put forth a passionate believable defence that the public believed.  He denied every accusation and was ultimately confirmed.   

It could be true that he used some offensive language.  Assuming that’s the case; do you really think the Dems cared about his language or did they care about destroying him so they could continue moving the country in a liberal anti-constitutional direction?  

Congressional Rep. Jim Jordan-
2018 Jordan, is a powerful congressman who is potentially in line to become the next speaker of the house.  Almost as if planned… In July of 2018 he was accused of ignoring Dr Richard Strauss’s sexual abuse of dozens of wrestlers at Ohio state TWENTY YEARS AGO.  The accusation was that he “must have known” and turned a blind eye to it.  No accusation that he did anything; rather that he “must have known”.  He vehemently denied ever having any knowledge of it. 

The following certainly does not prove that the Jordan never had any knowledge but Mark Coleman, former MMA star, stated he was abused by the Doctor but has now stated:
 “At no time did I ever say or have any direct knowledge that Jim Jordan knew of Dr. Richard Strauss’s inappropriate behavior” He went on to say, “I have nothing but respect for Jim Jordan as I have known him for more than 30 years and know him to be of impeccable character.”

Beginning to see a pattern?