The Odd Story About Christine Blasey Ford’s Second Front Door That Triggered the Kavanaugh Allegation

By Townhall. The sexual misconduct allegations against Kavanaugh all were lacking evidence and corroborating witnesses. It was a horrid window into how the Left views due process and the presumption of innocence. In short, it’s lacking in their world. It’s all guided by identity politics and the cuckoo notion that women are incapable of lying. The first allegation lobbed by Christine Blasey Ford, where she says a drunken 17-year-old Kavanaugh tried to rape her at a high school party, was handwritten in a letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) office, where it sat for weeks. Feinstein didn’t disclose it to anyone, not even her Senate colleagues until the last minute, which set off this clown show. In all probability, the Democrats leaked the letter and weaponized this woman’s allegation. There’s not a shred of evidence to confirm this—and Ford can’t remember key details. She doesn’t know who organized the party, whose house it was in, how she got there, or who drove her home after the alleged attack. Years later, when doing a home renovation, an argument over a door brought out the story in couple’s therapy in 2012. Yet, Paul Sperry of Real Clear Investigations noted something odd about this part of Ford’s testimony before Congress, namely that the timeline doesn’t match up. (Read more from “The Odd Story About Christine Blasey Ford’s Second Front Door That Triggered the Kavanaugh Allegation” HERE)

__________________________________________________________

Renovation Records Undercut Ford’s Exit-Door Account

By Real Clear Investigations. Real estate and other records undercut a key part of Christine Blasey Ford’s account of why she finally came forward with charges of attempted rape against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh after some 30 years.

Ford testified last week that she had never revealed the details of the alleged attack until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband. She said the memories percolated up as they revisited a disagreement they’d had over her insistence on installing a “second front door” when they had remodeled their Palo Alto, Calif., home.

The need to explain a decision her husband “didn’t understand,” Ford testified, pushed her to say she wanted the door to alleviate symptoms of “claustrophobia” and “panic attacks” she still suffered from an attempted rape allegedly perpetrated by Kavanaugh in high school during the early 1980s.

“Is that the reason for the second door — front door — is claustrophobia?” asked Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. “Correct,” Ford replied. . .

But documents reveal the door was installed years before as part of an addition, and has been used by renters and even a marriage counseling business. (Read more from “Renovation Records Undercut Ford’s Exit-Door Account” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

GOP Senator Reveals the Gruesome Text Message His Wife Received After He Voted to Confirm Kavanaugh

By The Blaze. Republican Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) knew the left was angry about Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation. But unfortunately, he learned first-hand on Saturday just how angry Democrats are.

Gardner revealed to Fox News Sunday that after he voted to confirm Kavanaugh, his wife received a graphic text message with a video depicting a beheading. Additionally, he said his family was doxxed and some of their personal information was made public. . .

Gardner’s press secretary, Casey Contres, confirmed the reporting to the Daily Caller News Foundation. Contres added that Gardner’s office may provide additional details on the threat at a later time.

It wasn’t immediately clear if there were any suspects, or if law enforcement knew the source of the disturbing message.

As Fox News noted, Gardner voiced his support for Kavanaugh in July after President Donald Trump nominated him. Gardner reiterated his support for Kavanaugh after the FBI concluded its “supplemental” investigation into Kavanaugh’s background last week. (Read more from “GOP Senator Reveals the Gruesome Text Message His Wife Received After He Voted to Confirm Kavanaugh” HERE)

_________________________________________________________

Sen. Cory Gardner Reveals Wife Received Graphic Text of Beheading After Kavanaugh Vote

By Fox News. In the wake of his vote to confirm Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh on Saturday, Republican Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., revealed to Fox News on Sunday that his wife had received a graphic text message with a video depicting a beheading, and that someone has publicly posted the names and addresses of his family members.

Gardner announced his support for Kavanaugh in July, and reaffirmed it after reviewing the supplemental FBI report into uncorroborated sexual misconduct allegations against him.

Late last month, Gardner received a letter from an anonymous individual apparently in Denver, alleging that Kavanaugh had “shoved” someone up against a wall “very aggressively and sexually” during an outing in 1998 in front of four witnesses. The allegation was later deemed not to be credible.

“Every victim of abuse, assault, and violence has been through an unspeakable tragedy and we need to do a better job listening to them, ensuring support is available, and fighting to end abuse of any kind,” Gardner said in a statement prior to receiving the graphic text messages. “I hope that the partisan divide we all feel today does not hinder the people that have bravely come forward.”

Kavanaugh, his wife Ashley, and his accuser Christine Blasey Ford have also all received numerous death threats in recent days. (Read more from “Sen. Cory Gardner Reveals Wife Received Graphic Text of Beheading After Kavanaugh Vote” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Dem Staffer Arrested for Doxxing Republican Senators Wasn’t an Intern

A Democratic staffer arrested last week on charges that he revealed the personal information of several Republican Senate Judiciary Committee members was not an “intern” for Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), as originally reported. The 27-year-old career staffer, Jackson Cosko, was, instead, reportedly a “fellow” paid by an “outside institution” who served as a primary adviser in Lee’s Congressional office.

According to the Tennessee Star, “[w]hile [Lee] claims Cosko was an ‘unpaid intern’ in her office, the Washington Post reports that Cosko was actually a ‘fellow.’ This was confirmed by Cosko’s lawyer, who said his client was a ‘fellow’ in Jackson-Lee’s office and that he was being paid by an ‘outside institution.'”

The “outside institution” has yet to be named, but the position of “fellow” is much different from that of “intern.” According to correspondence from Lee’s office, Cosko was routinely trusted to advise Lee and communicate with other members of Congress, specifically those co-sponsoring Lee’s bills.

As the Tennessee Star points out, that raises questions: “It seems clear Cosko isn’t some unlucky and overzealous intern who got caught being a naughty boy. Rather, it seems Cosko might be a Democratic operative, paid by an outside organization, planted in an unpopular congresswoman’s office possibly so he could engage in exactly the type of behavior that just got him arrested.” (Read more from “The Dem Staffer Arrested for Doxxing Republican Senators Wasn’t an Intern” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump: Murkowski Will Pay For Saturday’s “Unacceptable” Vote; Democrats Now Want to Impeach Kavanaugh

By Tal Axelrod. President Trump called Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s (R-Alaska) “present” vote on Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court “really unacceptable.”

“I think she will never recover from this. I think the people from Alaska will never forgive her for what she did.” Trump said in a brief phone interview with The Washington Post shortly before Kavanaugh was confirmed to the Supreme Court by a 50-48 margin.

Trump predicted Murkowski’s stance on Kavanaugh would result in a tough primary challenge when she runs for reelection in 2022.

“She doesn’t run for four years,” he said. “She’s lucky.” (Read more from this story HERE)

____________________________________________

By The Blaze. Even before it was clear that Judge Brett Kavanaugh had enough votes in the Senate to be confirmed to the Supreme Court, congressional Democrats announced intentions to investigate and potentially impeach him if they took control of the legislative branch.

Christine Blasey Ford, who accused Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her in 1982, has said through her lawyers that she wants no part of it, according to CNN.

“Professor Ford has not asked for anything of the sort,” said attorney Deborah Katz. “What she did was to come forward and testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee and agree to cooperate with any investigation by the FBI and that’s what she sought to do here.”

It is yet to be seen whether Democrats would honor her wishes if they win big in November midterm elections. (Read more from “Democrats Now Want to Impeach Kavanaugh — but Ford Says She’s Had Enough” HERE)

____________________________________________

Christine Blasey Ford’s Legal Team Slams Senate Judiciary Committee

By Politico. Christine Blasey Ford’s legal team slammed the Senate Judiciary Committee on Friday evening for their investigation into her claims that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in high school.

“We believe Christine Blasey Ford and we fully support her,” Ford’s legal team said in a statement. “Senators claiming to want a dignified debate should not repeat lies constructed by the Judiciary Committee that were cynically designed to win support for Judge Kavanaugh.”

Ford testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee last week that she was “100 percent” sure Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in the 1980s, a claim he repeatedly denied in his own testimony.

Ford’s legal team and GOP committee staffers have argued for weeks over both her testimony and what additional evidence she would provide, if any, to the committee. Among the documents the two sides have debated over are the details of a polygraph test and notes from her therapist — the latter of which are said to document the first time she told someone about the alleged assault. (Read more from “Christine Blasey Ford’s Legal Team Slams Senate Judiciary Committee” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Five-Year-Old Allegedly Sexually Assaulted in School Bathroom Because of Secret Transgender Policy

The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) of the U.S. Department of Education has opened an investigation into a Georgia elementary school for its handling of a sexual assault that allegedly took place in an elementary school bathroom after a district-wide policy was enacted allowing male students to enter the girls’ bathroom.

On the evening of November 16, 2017, Pascha Thomas’s five-year-old daughter complained of vaginal pain. That’s when her daughter said she had been sexually assaulted by a male classmate in the bathroom at Oakhurst Elementary School in Decatur, Georgia earlier that week.

By her daughter’s account, she had asked the teacher if she could be excused from class to use the restroom. When she was coming out of the bathroom stall, the child said, a male classmate who had followed her into the bathroom was waiting for her. . .

The next day, Pascha went to report her daughter’s story to school officials, which was relayed to the Decatur Police Department. It was determined that the Department of Family and Children Services (DFCS) would coordinate services for her daughter and the boy who allegedly assaulted her. Pascha took her daughter to the Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta Hospital to be examined later that day, where she again complained of vaginal pain.

She heard nothing from school officials for several weeks, during which Pascha says they dodged her repeated calls and ignored her requests to speak with them. When they finally agreed to meet with her on December 8, Pascha learned the boy her daughter says assaulted her identifies as “gender fluid.” He had been allowed to use the girl’s bathroom due to a district-wide policy change that allowed students to use whatever bathroom they felt was “correct,” and that the policy would remain in place — allowing him to continue using the same restroom as her daughter. (Read more from “Five-Year-Old Allegedly Sexually Assaulted in School Bathroom Because of Secret Transgender Policy” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

No, Anthony Kennedy, It Is You Who Destroyed Democracy

The country is racked with strife and acrimony over the filling of a single Supreme Court seat. Nobody is supposedly more dismayed over the rancorous political debate than the man who vacated the seat himself. But if Anthony Kennedy would actually look in the mirror, he’d understand that he is the cause of the problem we have with idolatry of the Supreme Court.

Speaking to a group of high school students in his hometown of Sacramento, California, the former justice lamented the loss of civil discourse and the decline of democracy. “Perhaps we didn’t do too good a job teaching the importance of preserving democracy by an enlightened civic discourse,” said Kennedy in response to concerned questions from the audience last Friday. “In the first part of this century, we’re seeing the death and decline of democracy.”

Leaving aside the fact that we are a republic and not a democracy, Kennedy should look at himself to discover the number-one source of the breakdown of our democracy or republic. When you believe that all the power over our culture and society and even our borders resides in the hands of unelected judges, most pivotally the “Kennedy swing vote” on the Supreme Court, then nothing else matters but who will fill that seat. Our Founders didn’t envision this much uncivil discourse over a single Supreme Court seat because they understood that we have three branches of government, with the judiciary as the weakest, and 50 individual state governments. But according to Kennedy, a Supreme Court justice can single-handedly redefine the building block of all civilization from the bench.

In the infamous same-sex marriage case of 2015, Justice Anthony Kennedy didn’t just redefine marriage from the bench. He remade our Constitution and our entire system of governance. After asserting that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment couldn’t possibly know “the extent of freedom and all its dimensions,” Kennedy penned twenty-three words that will forever endanger our sovereignty unless the courts are stripped down to size: “and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.”

The “we” is, of course, referring to the courts. Kennedy believes that the courts are the final say even over natural law and that they can rediscover new insights into the Constitution as they see fit.

This is more power than King George held at the time of the Revolution. As such, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out why such a fabricated position of power will bring out the worst in America every time there is a vacancy.

A polarized and diverse country of this size will always reflect sharp political and societal disagreements. But at least when those decisions are made through the political process, there is always recourse for the losing side to force compromises, concessions, and conditions on those changes, or they can live to fight again another day, reverse course through the electoral process, and see their vision of society actualized through the new representatives.

As Justice Scalia used to say, “Persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and pass a law. That’s what democracy is all about. It’s not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.”

None of this can occur when the consequential societal issues of our time are decided by the unelected branch of government, as Anthony Kennedy would have it.

What’s worse, now any district judge, deliberately shopped by a plaintiff, can create new rights. Just last night, Judge Edward Chen of the Northern District of California said that Trump must continue Temporary Protected Status for primarily illegal aliens from Sudan, El Salvador, Haiti, and Nicaragua. As we noted in a similar lawsuit, the statute explicitly strips jurisdiction over this issue from courts, the president has full authority to discontinue the status, and the statute requires that the program only be temporary. Yet judges are now creating a right to make a temporary humanitarian program a permanent amnesty for illegals.

At the same time, the Ninth Circuit is now asserting that ICE can’t detain Central American teenagers suspected of being MS-13 members. The court said these individuals are entitled to litigate their designation as a gang member, even though they have no right to be in this country in the first place.

Remember, we already won a Supreme Court case over whether a plaintiff can assert that Trump is banned from enforcing immigration law as written because he is a supposed racist, and the high court tossed it out. Yet it’s meaningless. With the system Kennedy and others created, it’s heads the Left wins, tails the Left wins. It’s a perfect one-directional ratchet that Kennedy and his ilk in the corrupted legal profession have created.

Once we agree that a judge sets the terms for life, marriage, and borders, there’s nothing left in our political system but to tear each other apart over judicial picks.

During a speech he delivered at Harvard in 2015, Kennedy was asked by a law student whether state officials are always bound by the “new insights” of Kennedy and his colleagues and whether they are forbidden to “act according to the old understanding of life and the Constitution.”

Kennedy replied by extolling the virtues of those who resign when their faith comes into conflict with what he views as the law. He even gave the bizarre analogy of judges resigning in Nazi Germany, and then noted the following:

Great respect, it seems to me, has to be given to people who resign rather than do something they view as morally wrong, in order to make a point. However, the rule of law is that, as a public official, in performing your legal duties, you are bound to enforce the law.

So, Kennedy himself believes that his branch of government alone has the power to unilaterally alter the Constitution and force others to resign or break the real moral law, reminiscent of a dark time he himself references.

Indeed, there is nothing more antithetical to democracy than the system Kennedy has built for his entire life. If we would undo his judicial tyranny, we would go a long way toward restoring our democratic republic and defuse some of the polarization through federalism.

In one of his final dissents, in Montgomery v. Louisiana, Justice Scalia warned of the dangers of Kennedy’s penchant for inventing new rights. In that case, Kennedy discovered that a sentence of life imprisonment without parole for a juvenile murderer essentially violated the Constitution, even though this practice had been in place since our Founding. He called Kennedy’s opinion an “embarrassment” and an extortion of states in “Godfather fashion.” Scalia observed that Kennedy was also the author of an opinion a decade earlier that essentially gutted the death penalty for juvenile murderers on the basis that life in prison without parole was a severe enough punishment. Yet, a decade later, Kennedy was able to discover a new right for juveniles against even that punishment, much as he discovered gay marriage in the Constitution just two years after he said that states get to decide the issue. “As we learn its meaning,” indeed!

Kennedy made the court powerful enough that everyone in the country feels that their survival depends upon it, so of course they will act out during a nomination fight … as if their survival depends upon it! As Scalia warned in Obergefell, “With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them—with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the ‘reasoned judgment’ of a bare majority of this Court—we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.”

Indeed, Anthony Kennedy has nobody to blame but himself. (For more from the author of “No, Anthony Kennedy, It Is You Who Destroyed Democracy” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Is it Time for President Trump to Give Kavanaugh the Boot?

Like many patriots, I was not terribly excited about President Trump’s nomination of Brett Kavanaugh several months ago. Unlike Amy Barrett, Judge Kavanaugh was lackluster on his commitment to life, seemed to be in bed with the Bushes, and had real problems following the dictates of the Fourth Amendment. But given my support for the President, I was willing to give his nominee – and his better understanding of the difficult Senate confirmation battle – the benefit of the doubt.

Well before Christine Blasey Ford’s questionable allegations against Kavanaugh, I started hearing rumblings in liberty circles about Kavanaugh’s work with Establishment-pawn Kenneth Starr during the Vince Foster investigation in the mid-nineties. It took little time to determine that young Brett Kavanaugh was instrumental in the takedown of an important whistle-blower – Patrick Knowlton – an innocent bystander sucked into the whirlwind of the Vince Foster investigation because of what he saw on the day Foster’s body was discovered in Fort Marcy Park. Contradicting the official narrative, Knowlton claimed Foster’s car wasn’t at Marcy Park when he stopped to relieve himself, about seventy minutes after Foster supposedly drove himself there to commit suicide.

A British journalist assigned to Washington, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, tracked down Knowlton and discovered that no one on Starr’s team had interviewed him, even though he was the first known person at the Foster crime scene. Pritchard, now the international business editor of the Daily Telegraph, published a story forcing the FBI to follow up. Knowlton’s life would never be the same.

According to Knowlton, the FBI’s efforts weren’t to get to the truth but to get him to change his story. The agency’s first witness statement attributed to him was completely made up. According to journalist Pritchard, the FBI’s statement

contradicted [Knowlton’s] express assertions. He said the FBI had tried repeatedly to badger him into changing his story on key facts. Each time he refused. Now it appeared they had written in what they wanted to hear. He agreed to go public and accused the FBI of falsifying his witness statement. This was to court trouble.

After the falsified FBI witness statement, Knowlton was then called before the DC grand jury to face none other than Starr’s deputy, Brett Kavanaugh. In an article published just yesterday, Pritchard claims

What happened first was an eye-opener. Before testifying, he suffered two days of what appeared to be systematic intimidation by a large surveillance team. This was observed by two other witnesses, including Chris Ruddy, now the powerful chief executive of NewsMax.

Mr. Ruddy called me in shock from Dupont Circle to recount what he saw. A deeply-shaken Mr. Knowlton contacted me from his home several times, until his phone was cut off.

Veteran intelligence agents might recognize a method. It had the hallmarks of a boilerplate softening-up operation. In my view – unprovable – the objective was to frighten him before his grand jury appearance. It smacked of police state behavior on the streets of Washington DC.

I informed Mr. Starr’s office that their grand jury witness was being intimidated. So did Mr. Knowlton’s lawyer, who asked for witness protection. Nothing was done. Mr. Kavanaugh brushed it off, saying the Telegraph was behind all this mischief in order to “sell newspapers”.

When Mr. Knowlton appeared at the grand jury – thinking he was doing his civic duty – he says he was subjected to two and a half hours of character assassination by Mr. Kavanaugh. There was little attempt to find out what he knew about the Foster death scene.

Knowlton blames Brett Kavanaugh personally for what happened to him during this process.

According to Pritchard, Kavanaugh went on to write the Starr report himself, rejecting the observations of not just Knowlton, but also the concerns of his colleague, federal prosecutor Miquel Rodriguez, who was forced out of the investigation because of his concerns about the cover-up.

Even though there were other major problems with the official narrative surrounding Foster’s supposed suicide, no bigwigs in the beltway would touch it with a ten foot pole. Now, twenty-three years later, most “respectable” politicos still run for cover when even a whisper of any type of Foster cover-up conspiracy is heard. No surprise then that even our few congressional allies are staying mum to Kavanaugh’s fixer past.

But this past is relevant, far more so than what we heard in last week’s hearings. As is the fact that globalist George Bush personally went to bat repeatedly for Kavanaugh over the past several weeks. If confirmed, Kavanaugh will just be another stooge on the bench, tossing patriots a bone here and there, but ultimately moving the high Court closer to the globalist oligarchs, and further away from our Founders’ intent.

Bombshell: Ford Lied Under Oath

By Daily Wire. A new letter, released by Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA), states that a former boyfriend of Christine Blasey Ford says that he personally witnessed her coaching someone on how to take a polygraph test, despite the fact that she testified under oath that she had never done so.

“The full details of Dr. Ford’s polygraph are particularly important because the Senate Judiciary Committee has received a sworn statement from a longtime boyfriend of Dr. Ford’s, stating that he personally witnessed Dr. Ford coaching a friend on polygraph examinations,” Grassley wrote.

Ford’s ex-boyfriend said in his letter that Ford coached Monica L. McLean on how to pass a polygraph test, saying that she “explained in detail what to expect” during the polygraph and how to be “less nervous” about the test.

A source familiar with the matter told The Daily Wire that there is potentially a second witness who can corroborate the claims made by Ford’s ex-boyfriend.

(Read more from “Bombshell: Ford Lied Under Oath” HERE)

______________________________________________________

Trump Mocks Kavanaugh Accuser Christine Blasey Ford

By Washington Post. President Trump mocked the account of a woman who accused Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh of assault and told a Mississippi crowd that the #MeToo movement was unfairly hurting men.

Trump, in a riff that has been dreaded by White House and Senate aides, attacked the story of Christine Blasey Ford at length — drawing laughs from the crowd. The remarks were his strongest attacks yet of her testimony.

“ ‘I don’t know. I don’t know.’ ‘Upstairs? Downstairs? Where was it?’ ‘I don’t know. But I had one beer. That’s the only thing I remember,’ ” Trump said of Ford, as he impersonated her on stage.

“I don’t remember,” he said repeatedly, apparently mocking her testimony. (Read more from “Trump Mocks Kavanaugh Accuser Christine Blasey Ford” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Navy SEAL Drops Truth Bomb on Kavanaugh Accuser Believers

Robert O’Neill, the famous Navy SEAL who helped kill Osama bin Laden, says the “believe survivors” refrain surrounding Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh’s accuser is never used in conjunction with the 2012 Benghazi terror attack.

The SEAL Team 6 member who took out the United States’ most wanted terrorist during operation Neptune’s Spear added some military perspective this weekend to the controversy surrounding President Trump’s top pick to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Mr. O’Neill asked his social media followers why sexual misconduct allegations — like those leveled by California college professor Christine Blasey Ford towards Judge Kavanaugh — are supposed to be believed wholesale by the public, while Benghazi terror attack survivors like Kris Paronto are seemingly ignored.

Ms. Blasey Ford claims that Judge Kavanaugh attempted to rape her at an unspecified home during the summer of 1982. Individuals she cited as witnesses have failed to corroborate her claims. . .

Mr. O’Neill’s tweet references the terrorist siege in Libya that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, foreign service officer Sean Smith, and CIA contractors Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty at a CIA compound. (Read more from “Navy SEAL Drops Truth Bomb on Kavanaugh Accuser Believers” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Question Conservatives Should Ask After the Unifying Kavanaugh Moment

Friday was a surreal day for everyone who considers themselves conservative or Republican.

On the one hand, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to advance Kavanaugh in a shocking and unusual display of intrepidness from Republican members. On the other hand, at high noon, President Trump signed into law the worst budget and policy betrayal of any majority party against its voters in recent memory.

So where do things stand?

Putting the hard-core RINOs like Jeff Flake, Lisa Murkowski, and Susan Collins aside, have Republicans like Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, and Chuck Grassley really learned their lesson of holding the line on principle and recognizing they can’t negotiate in good faith with opponents who will use their goodwill to cut their hearts out? Will they finally look across the aisle – not just in the context of Supreme Court nominees – and view the other side the way Democrats incorrigibly view them?

It has been observed that last Thursday’s crescendo of emotional testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, in conjunction with the culmination of the truly evil behavior from Democrats, was a galvanizing and unifying moment for the disparate and conflicting elements of the barely coherent Republican Party. But there is no evidence to support the assumption that Republicans have learned their lesson on any other issue in dealing with Democrats.

We must not trust and hope that Republicans will begin fighting for us; we must demand it and verify it. They hold the line, or try to, on SCOTUS nominees because of what’s at stake for them if they don’t, and no amount of angry rhetoric on the Kavanaugh situation indicates that they will change this mode of operation.

Put simply, Republicans need to hold the line on the Supreme Court because it is their cover for elections and for governance. They fight emphatically on nominees and even held open a seat under Obama because it covers up their capitulations on 99 percent of the other issues. Thus, they can’t afford to cave on the Supreme Court. Plus, by exalting the role of the court to that of the supreme body of government, they excuse themselves from actually promoting tough reforms and taking power back from the courts. They outsource governing to the unelected courts and promise to make the courts better simply by “appointing better judges.” It’s the perfect scam to keep their culture of capitulation intact while still forcing conservatives to remain on their plantation every other November.

Thus, their strong position on “appointing and confirming better judges” really comes from their bad view of the role of the courts and their preference for distracting conservatives from all their other failures and betrayals on spending, abortion, traditional values, health care, immigration, and free markets.

But on this one issue of SCOTUS justices, where mainstream leadership members want to hold the line, they can’t even move the ball past the goal line because of the three or four RINOs at the fringe of the conference who are now obstructing confirmation. Some might sympathize with the leadership types – McConnell, Cornyn, and Grassley – because they would have confirmed Kavanaugh already if not for the wayward RINOs. Perhaps we just need to “elect more Republicans.” But the reason we have these RINOs is because of the failed leadership.

Every time conservatives push to nominate candidates who actually support the party’s platform, McConnell and crew burn down our candidates with the same vigor the Left is employing against Kavanaugh. They are personally destroyed. We could easily gotten Joe Miller in Alaska last time instead of Lisa Murkowski, but the establishment has no standards.

It’s not like Republicans are attempting to improve their roster, either. They have all backed Mitt Romney, against all competition, to win a Senate seat in ruby-red Utah. Now, Mitt Romney, who will likely become the new John McCain, is extolling Democrat demands on Kavanaugh. We have him to look forward to as the light at the end of this election. Even Marco Rubio is wavering on the issue. It’s no surprise, given that he and Tim Scott have already teamed up to sink a solid Ninth Circuit nominee, which likely taught Democrats that using identity politics and sensationalism can pick the Republican lock on even on the sacred issue of judicial nominees. The number of potential RINOs on any given issue is infinite because the party has no core beliefs and no process through which to vet candidates like Democrats do. Democrats run a right ship. Even Democratic members who hail from solid red states stick with the party and are voting against Kavanaugh. They don’t have a “DINO” problem because their party exudes core convictions on a daily basis.

Which brings us to the post-Kavanagh dynamic. Have these Republicans learned anything? Will Lindsey Graham suddenly serve as a bulwark against Democrats immorality, motivated by the same power-hungry truculence, on other issues such as border security and health care?

During last Friday’s vote on Kavanaugh, John Cornyn, the number two ranking Republican, referred to Democrat members of the committee as “cruel, reckless, and having no sense of decency.” I think he genuinely meant what he said and was sincerely pained by their behavior. But now that he recognizes that these people have no sense of decency, why is it that they he and others sit down with them and either fully or partially agree with their plans for crime, immigration, health care, budget, or any other issue? Don’t they see that everything about Democrats is motivated by power and that they will be cruel, reckless, and lack decency in pursuit of all those policy goals, particularly when they are designed to cement their political power, as is evident on issues like health care and immigration?

What few people outside Washington realize is that 90 percent of the work in Congress is remarkably bipartisan – and all in one direction. That is not the direction of conservatism. There is no evidence that what is happening to Kavanaugh will serve as a watershed moment for these people to change the way they do business with Democrats. Indeed, they just passed a budget supported by every cruel, reckless, and indecent Democrat member of that committee, including Kamala Harris, Mazie Hirono, and Cory “Spartacus” Booker.

Conservatives would be making a grave mistake to trust an unverified change in the behavior of GOP leadership. We have a lot more work to do than simply “voting Republican” for five minutes behind a booth on a Tuesday every other November. (For more from the author of “The Question Conservatives Should Ask After the Unifying Kavanaugh Moment” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.