Alan Dershowitz Links Nature Of Allegation With Level of Evidence. That Was When We Were Still A Nation Respectful of The Rule of Law.

What Ms Mitchell had to say:

http://hermancain.com/rachel-mitchell-finds-he-said-she-said-cases-are-tough-to-prove-this-case-is-even-weaker-than/

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Alan Dershowitz makes a lot of sense as he links the type of illegal action with the degree of warranted evidence but then that was when America was still a nation respectful of the rule of law.  That all changed when Nympho-manic Democrats found Ms Ford. (See 1 and 1a below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 
The FBI will have wrapped up their called for review by Friday, if not sooner. Rest assured, Nympho-manicDemocrats will continue to urge more interviews, a longer investigation because they are interested in delay, will never be happy no matter what is done because their ultimate goal is first defeating Kavanaugh and, if not that, at least destroying his character.  

Kavanaugh had 6 previous investigations and nothing came out until he was ready to be appointed to The SCOTUS.  In essence, if he was a serial rapist, as long as he was only on the second highest court, that would be ok even though he was also appointed for life as with all Federal Judgeship's.

Democrats will rue the day they have become. The party dedicated to destroying a person's character and all the other nefarious actions in which they engage. They have been doing this for decades so why is everyone surprised.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I will be out of town Tuesday and Wednesday conducting an art tour.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dick

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) This Is No Mere ‘Job Interview’

Even in the court of public opinion, basic fairness should preclude conviction without clear evidence.

By Alan Dershowitz

Until Judge Brett Kavanaugh was accused of horrible crimes—sexual assault, lewd conduct and even gang rape—his confirmation hearings could fairly, if not entirely accurately, be characterized as a “job interview.” The burden was on him to demonstrate his suitability to serve on the Supreme Court. He apparently met that burden in the eyes of a majority, a partisan one to be sure, and seemed on the way to getting the job.

But now everything has changed. So should the burden of persuasion. The behavior of which Judge Kavanaugh has been accused is so serious and devastating that it requires a high level of proof before forming the basis for his rejection. There is an enormous and dispositive difference between a candidate’s rejection on ideological grounds, as was the case with Robert Bork, and rejection on the ground that he has committed crimes warranting lifetime imprisonment rather than a lifetime appointment.

Being on the Supreme Court is a privilege, not a right. But being disqualified based on a false accusation of a crime would be a violation of the fundamental right to fairness. Some will argue that the issue of Judge Kavanaugh’s ideological and professional qualifications should be merged with the sexual allegations and that doubts should be resolved against a lifetime appointment.

In some cases that would be a plausible argument. But it is too late for that kind of nuanced approach now, because these accusations have received world-wide attention. Judge Kavanaugh is on trial for his life. At stake are his career, his family, his legacy and a reputation earned over many decades as a lawyer and judge.

If he is now denied the appointment, it will be because he has been depicted as a sexual predator who deserves contempt, derision and possible imprisonment. He may no longer be able to teach law, coach sports or expect to be treated respectfully. He could be forced to resign his current judicial position, because having a “convicted” rapist on the bench is unseemly. For these reasons, he now has the right—perhaps not a legal right, but a right based on fundamental fairness—to have the charges against him put to the test of clear and convincing evidence or some standard close to that.

The court of public opinion is different from a court of law, but it too is an important court. Wouldn’t anyone rather be convicted in a court of law of drunken driving—also a serious crime—than convicted in the court of public opinion of being a serial sex predator? Many would even rather go to prison for a year on drunken driving charges than be labeled a sexual predator for life. In a nation dedicated to fairness and due process, explicit constitutional rights often serve as a metaphor and guide in the kind of basic fairness we demand even in nonlegal proceedings. That model should operate here as well.

Had Judge Kavanaugh been rejected on ideological or professional grounds before these sordid accusations were leveled, he could go back to his life, as Robert Bork did. But if the Senate fails to confirm him now, his life will never be the same.

Some would argue that if Judge Kavanaugh is now confirmed in the face of these serious accusations, it will have an equally damaging effect on the life, reputation and credibility of his accusers. That is false. Even if he is confirmed, those accusers will be treated as heroes by the many people who believe them. It will not have close to the impact on them that a failure to be confirmed will have on Judge Kavanaugh. The best evidence of that is Anita Hill, who has gone on to a distinguished career as an academic, writer, commentator and feminist. The stakes are simply not comparable.

I don’t know whether Judge Kavanaugh is guilty, innocent or somewhere in between. I don’t know whether he told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Judge Kavanaugh wouldn’t have been my candidate of choice for the Supreme Court. I am a liberal Democrat who believes Republicans improperly denied Judge Merrick Garland a seat on the high court.

But this is no longer about who would make the best Supreme Court justice. It is about the most fundamental issues of fairness this country has faced since the McCarthy era, when innocent people were accused of trying to overthrow the government and had their lives ruined based on false accusations, while being denied all semblance of due process or fairness. The American Civil Liberties Union stood strong against McCarthyism by demanding due process and hard evidence. But the ACLU now argues that “unresolved questions regarding credible allegations of sexual assault” be resolved against the accused nominee.

We have come a long way since McCarthyism, but we now live in an age that risks a new form of sexual McCarthyism. We must not go to that even darker place. The best way of assuring that we don’t is to accord every person regardless of his status, the kind of fundamental fairness we would expect for ourselves if we were accused.

Mr. Dershowitz is a professor emeritus at Harvard Law School and author of “The Case Against Impeaching Trump.”

1a) Feinstein’s ‘Temperament’ Gambit

Democrats lobby the ABA to reopen its Kavanaugh evaluation.

By The EditorialBoard

The intervention by American Bar Association President and Hillary Clinton supporter Robert Carlson against Brett Kavanaugh turns out to be even worse than we reported on Saturday. Now, exploiting the latest delay in a Senate confirmation vote, Democrats and liberals like Mr. Carlson are pressuring the ABA’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary to reopen its evaluation of Brett Kavanaugh.

The ABA committee submitted its evaluation to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Aug. 31. Paul Moxley, the Utah lawyer who chairs the ABA committee, wrote that “after an exhaustive evaluation process, the Standing Committee has determined by a unanimous vote that Judge Kavanaugh is ‘Well Qualified.’” That is the ABA’s highest rating.

The excuse now being pushed on the ABA behind the scenes isn’t merely the uncorroborated claims of sexual misconduct, which are being investigated by the FBI. The new claim is that Mr. Kavanaugh’s passionate defense of his reputation before the Senate last week showed that he is too political and lacks the proper judicial temperament.

“Judge Kavanaugh did not reflect an impartial temperament or the fairness and even-handedness one would see in a judge,” Senate Democrat Dianne Feinstein tweeted on Friday. “He was aggressive and belligerent.”

The media have picked up the meme. “The judge who previously served as a top aide to President George W. Bush and worked for independent counsel Ken Starr’s investigation of President Bill Clinton tossed aside his earlier judicious language of neutrality,” opined CNN legal analyst Joan Biskupic.

“His declaration was the product of his personal anger, to be sure, and the move of a nominee whose professional and personal fate was on the line. But the result—of his rhetoric and the overall tenor of the nomination—means he could forever be marked as a politician on the bench rather than a neutral jurist,” Ms. Biskupic added.

The “overall tenor of the nomination?” Seriously? Who does the high-minded Ms. Biskupic think lowered the tone?

Mr. Kavanaugh didn’t ignore his 307 judicial opinions and hunt for dirt to destroy his reputation. Mr. Kavanaugh didn’t float charges about gang rape and ask questions about adolescent entries in a high-school yearbook. That was the “tenor” supplied by Ms. Feinstein and Democratic yearbook scholar Sheldon Whitehouse.

Mr. Kavanaugh is fighting for his professional life, has been accused of being a violent drunk and gang rapist, and he is supposed to respond like he’s at a Supreme Court oral argument on the separation of powers? Under this Feinstein-Biskupic standard, Democrats are allowed to say anything to ruin a nominee and then disqualify that nominee because he fights back rather than withdraws.

As for Judge Kavanaugh being a partisan Republican, what else is new? The four liberal Justices on the Supreme Court are partisan Democrats. The relevant standard for a judge is whether he can separate his legal analysis from his partisan affiliation. Judge Kavanaugh has a decade-long record of doing exactly that on the federal bench.

Speaking of judicial temperament, recall Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s rhetorical assault on Donald Trump in July 2016. “I can’t imagine what the country would be—with Donald Trump as our President,” the Justice averred, adding that the possibility brought to mind her late husband’s advice: “Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand.” How does that rate on partiality?

Reopening the ABA’s evaluation now would be unjustified and betray the legal guild as the left-wing partisan force in politics that it so often is. Mr. Moxley deserves credit for noting on Friday that Mr. Carlson’s last-minute freelance request for an FBI probe doesn’t change the ABA’s evaluation. He shouldn’t bow under backroom pressure this week.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++