An allegation is not self-proving. That is why it is called an allegation.

— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) September 21, 2018

Part of proving or disproving an allegation is the accused's right to respond to an allegation. There is a long precedent in the United States and society in general for thousands of years that the accuser must go first.  The accused gets a chance to respond.  Yet the lawyers for Dr. Ford said:  

Kavanaugh must testify first, before Ford. This, according to congressional aides, is a non-starter. It's not how the committee works, and given Kavanaugh would need to respond to Ford's testimony, will not occur.

Today, RNLA Co-Chair Joanne Young and RNLA Vice President for Communications Harmeet Dhillon issued a statement about how Democrats use allegations of mistreatment by women for partisan purposes.

Since the allegations against Judge Brett Kavanaugh by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford were made public on Sunday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley has done everything possible to ensure that the Senate investigates the claims and is able to evaluate their truth before moving forward with the nomination.  Yet despite the Democrats claiming that this is what they wanted, as Chairman Grassley has attempted to work with them, Senate Democrats and Dr. Ford's attorneys now claim that they want the Senate to wait for the results of an FBI investigation that the FBI says is not going to happen.  This reveals the Democrats' true goal, even more than the politically opportune timing of when Dr. Ford's accusations were leaked: delaying Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation until after the November elections in the hope of taking the Senate and blocking all future judicial nominations by President Trump.

Led by Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein, Democrats seem not to be interested in getting to the truth of the accusations by Christine Blasey Ford but rather in delaying the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh.  Let’s briefly analyze a few of Democrats' demands.

Accusation   “Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee who was first informed of Ford's accusation in July when the woman requested anonymity, denounced Republicans' efforts to limit the hearing to two witnesses.”

Reality:  Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein had the opportunity to select more than a dozen witnesses the last day of the scheduled Kavanaugh hearing.  She selected John Dean as the lead witness and did not even mention this matter.  “Dean is among more than a dozen witnesses selected by Democrats on the Judiciary Committee. The former White House counsel 'will speak about the abuse of executive power' during his appearance, according to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), the top Democrat on the panel."

The confirmation battle over the nomination of D.C. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court is back in the headlines after The Intercept reported on Wednesday that Senator Dianne Feinstein was keeping a document from her Senate Judiciary Committee Democratic colleagues that was regarding an incident involving Brett Kavanaugh in high school.  On Thursday, Senator Feinstein issued a statement that she had "information" on Judge Kavanaugh from an individual who requested confidentiality.  On Sunday, The Washington Post reported the identity of the accuser -- California research psychologist Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. 

While the story recounted by Dr. Ford is harrowing, this is not the proper way to handle an allegation of sexual assault against a nominee for high office, for the sake of everyone involved -- the accused nominee, the woman making the accusation, and the state of our political discourse and process.  Instead of using the confirmation process to vet the accusation, Senator Feinstein has held onto it until the last moment, releasing it at a time when she thinks it can be used to smear Judge Kavanaugh without giving the allegation a complete evaluation and hearing.  

Radical liberal organizations are trying to intimidate Republican Senator Susan Collins from Maine into voting against the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, even resorting to potentially illegal bribery and threatening her staff members.  The Wall Street Journal described the abhorrent campaign of intimidation against Senator Collins:

RNLA Executive Director Michael Thielen wrote today in the Daily Callerabout how Judge Brett Kavanaugh's personal experiences on and after 9/11 and his subsequent actions demonstrate his independence and his respect for the rule of law:

In response to questions from Senators Lindsay Graham and John Cornyn, Brett Kavanaugh described how he was at the White House that Tuesday morning, in the West Wing, when the second World Trade Center Tower was hit and the world realized that this was not an accident but a deliberate act of terrorism. . . . Kavanaugh recounted how . . . the focus of President George W. Bush on September 12 was that this sort of attack would not happen again, and how he was with Bush every day from 2003 to his confirmation in 2006, seeing firsthand the former president’s commitment to preventing another terrorist attack.

(This is the fourth in a series of five posts on the demonstrated bias of Democratic FEC Commissioner Ellen Weintraub.  The first installment is here, the second here, the third here, and the last installment will be posted in the next few days.)

Former FEC Chairman Brad Smith was the first to warn the American public, detailing the legal problems presented by Commissioner Weintraub's actions in a June 2017 blog post at the Institute for Free Speech.  According to Chairman Smith, "Federal Election Commissioner Ellen Weintraub's actions in recent months cast serious doubt on whether she can continue to credibly carry on her duties as a Commissioner.  She should recognize this predicament and do the honorable thing, which is to resign."  Chairman Smith outlined federal law that requires government officials to act without bias and documented Weintraub's violations of that legal duty.  
  
Chairman Smith also explained the corrosive effects of the anonymous AltFEC Twitter feed in 2017, before it was widely known that the AltFEC twitter feed is sponsored by Weintraub's staff.  

The second day of Judge Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing is ongoing and expected to end after 10:00 PM.  During this marathon day (fortunately for his endurance, Judge Kavanaugh has run actual marathons), Judge Kavanaugh has remained poised and engaged in substantive discussions of cases and legal theories with senators, often recalling specific citations (down to sections of opinions) without referencing his notes.  He has shown why he is extremely well-qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, as the ABA itself acknowledged.  While protestors continued to interrupt throughout the day, Democratic senators have not engaged in the indecorous grandstanding of yesterday.

You can review the hearing's event on RNLA's Twitter feed, and we will continue live-tweeting the hearing until it concludes.

Also of note, current and former RNLA women leaders submitted a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee leaders expressing support for Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation:

(This is the third in a series of five posts on the demonstrated bias of Democratic FEC Commissioner Ellen Weintraub.  The first installment is here, the second installment is here, and the last installments will be posted in the next few days.)

Commissioner Weintraub's Enforcement Votes Exhibit Bias Against President Trump 

Commissioner Weintraub's votes in recent enforcement matters also have raised eyebrows because she has rejected FEC General Counsel recommendations to dismiss matters and treated President Trump differently than she treated President Obama.

In a case, Matter Under Review 7244, where a complaint alleged that President Trump's Inaugural Committee incorrectly reported the addresses of a handful of donors out of many thousands of donors, errors had been corrected in amended reports.  In 2009 and 2013, the Obama Inaugural Committee filed amended reports to clear up errors, and the Commission took no enforcement action.  The Obama campaign also had taken in upwards of millions of dollars from foreign addresses, but claimed that it refunded those contributions.  In Obama cases, Weintraub voted to dismiss complaints and not even investigate.  Accordingly, the FEC General Counsel recommended dismissal of the Trump Inaugural Committee.  But Weintraub voted against dismissal.  She rejected her own General Counsel's recommendation, apparently because President Trump will face more severe enforcement than President Obama received.