If you thought that you’d heard it all when it comes to “crazy liberal logic” you may reconsider after this. And you can thank former Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm for it.
Granholm added her voice to the chorus of Democrats defending Supreme Court Justice nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser, professor Christine Blasey Ford.
But Granholm’s defense, presented on CNN, was a new spin on the rhetoric.
When it was pointed out that the four named alleged witnesses, including Kavanaugh, denied remembering that any such thing had happened, Granholm performed unbelievable mental gymnastics to twist that denial of Ford’s claim into support for it.
“And that actually corroborates Ford’s story. Which is that she was so horrified by this that she kind of snuck out or slunk out of this apartment in a way that no one would know what happened because she was so utterly mortified.”
MRC NewsBusters notes that this is “the Democrat standard of justice, one under which Kavanaugh can’t win. Witnesses confirm Ford’s account: corroboration! Witnesses don’t confirm Ford’s account: that’s corroboration too!”
Perhaps not surprisingly, CNN’s Jake Tapper “didn’t challenge Granholm on her surreal statement, moving on instead to a discussion of President Trump’s tweets on Ford never making this allegation until 2018.” To his credit, though, he did bring up the accusations against Rep. Keith Ellison — accusations which have been frequently referenced by the right in the ongoing Kavanaugh confirmation saga.
Granholm has been accused of destroying or nearly destroying Michigan with her policies while she was governor. The Canada Free Press wrote in 2014, “As Governor of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm did everything in her power to destroy the state.” It went on to note that she quickly relocated to California after term limits removed her from office.
The article was a warning for California residents, should she show political aspirations in the state. “If you think your state’s financial, regulatory, and environmental woes can’t get any worse, take if from those of us who survived Granholm’s reign of terror. It can always get worse.”
So, by all measures, Granholm is “a Democrat’s Democrat,” supporting the same causes and ideologies typically engendered by the party. This sickening spin on American jurisprudence is something else we’ve seen creeping into the rhetoric, particularly in terms of the accusation made against Kavanaugh.
The general Democrat gist has been that even though there is no proof and even though the witnesses deny it, Ford should be believed, because she “is” a victim. It also adds that Kavanaugh “is” a “rapist” even though what he is accused of, groping over clothes, is not rape, and so what if there is no proof. Her word is enough to forever deem him as such.
would they care about this?
The right approach vs Kavanaugh would’ve been to nail him for discussing details about the Russian investigation to Trump, because, as sad as it is, to the Republicans, ‘traitor’ sells better than ‘rapist’.
— McNuge4Seks (@McNuge4lyfe) September 23, 2018
— Michael O'Grady (@mog7546) September 23, 2018
Lefty Journalists: Brett Kavanaugh is a rapist.
Also Lefty Journalists: Brett Kavanaugh keeps old calendars–which possibly exonerates him–and makes me angry, so now I'll accuse him of being a weirdo.https://t.co/U8zujCaJhq
— JimDelEricCiaramella (@JimDelRey) September 23, 2018
Excuses run rampant for this illogical and counter narrative to the American belief in “innocent until proven guilty.” Ford supporters point out it is not a trial, so he can be deemed “guilty” and none of the other expectations when it comes to fairness apply, either.
it’s not a criminal trial. dude wants a lifetime appt to the Supreme Court. The bar should be higher than “maybe didn’t try to rape someone.”
— Christy Setzer (@christyNHC) September 23, 2018
Hellooo! He's not on trial. He is however a candidate for a very powerful job. Any doubt tells me we move on. There are others who are qualified for the job.
— Curtislund (@Curtislund2) September 23, 2018
Ok, but like. She's not trying to get a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court? Also this is not a legal trial, it's a job interview process. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
— jenn (@diagostinoj) September 23, 2018
And there’s more. Lots more. But here are just two more examples to give a more full understanding of the “logic”:
When interviewing on Fox News, @LindseyGrahamSC said…
“What we’ve got here are 11 politicians (Republican Judiciary Committee) who haven’t done a trial in about 20 years.”
…Lindsey, it’s not a trial! Dr. ford IS NOT on trial. What don’t you get?
— Jack v. Harris (@jvharris65) September 23, 2018
The current theory appears to be that because it is a “job interview” for a “lifetime appointment” if there is “any doubt” (i.e. any accusations), then without any further consideration or application of what is considered fair and reasonable under the law, he should be removed from consideration. Period.
His denial and witnesses denying it mean nothing. Ford made the claim and that is enough. Of course, he is a Republican, so the rules are different.
The left has deemed Kavanaugh a rapist, despite having zero evidence to support that claim. Not only are they destroying a good man's life, they are destroying the foundation of our judicial system. Enough of this BS. Stand up, and confirm Kavanaugh!
— Christi F (@Christi90361793) September 23, 2018
Democratic Sen. Cory Booker has admitted to sexual misconduct but was not even asked to recuse himself from any matters pertaining to Kavanaugh.
When is Grassley going to call out Ellison for his Domestic Battery? How about Booker for his Sexual Assault? Why the hell are people not getting the same treatment as Kavanaugh? @ChuckGrassley https://t.co/Kiz6TTmQ50
— Hock (@Hock_35) September 22, 2018
So that is another element of the new norm, Democrat-style, when it comes to justice and fairness. Political party.
The fear is that if the Democrats get control of Congress, given this new twist, such an upending of jurisprudence would work its way into a more official application. Anyone being deemed guilty of a crime and punished for it, based only on a claim and no proof, is not something that should be allowed in any setting in the United States or elsewhere.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.