They blew their credibility when they deemed credible the evidence-lacking accusations made against him in 2018 (including, as in the case of Sen. Warren, the ridiculous repeat-drugged-gang-rapes allegation from Swetnick).
They looked the other way when a Demo rat president was accused of rape.
They refused to impeach a Demo rat president even though he lied under oath, even as they now call for the impeachment of Trump and Kavanaugh.
They looked the other way when Demo rats in the highest offices in the state of Virginia faced scandals and Republicans would be their replacements. (When it comes to comparable claims made against Republicans, they routinely immediately assume the worst.) As one article put it, Demo rats were rendered speechless as scandal engulfed Virginia's Demo rat leadership. Isn't being caught dead to rights something that naturally causes speechlessness? (Rand-bashers also get speechless - and also not contrite - when their reckless misrepresentations and smears are refuted.) They have no defense for their blatant double standards, after all, and no one will believe their bullshit anyway.
This isn't to comment on the credibility of the latest accusation or new shit brought to light by the latest NYT piece. It is, however, to say that Demo rat politicians (along with various others in the media) should be left out of any discussion of these things, as they only bring toxicity and deliberate partisan water-muddying.
I mean, think about it from the perspective of anyone who wants to build a credible case against Kavanaugh: how on earth would such a person make any use of anything that the elected rats have had to say on the matter? Bringing in what they say could only damage one's credibility.
It's epistemic chickens coming home to roost, is all. The bums lost. If getting Kavanaugh ousted is what justice requires, then let's find some credible spokespeople for the cause, which means encouraging the elected rats to STFU so they don't manage to build sympathy for their target.
Addendum: Any responsible inquiry into this sort of thing will involve looking at the pushback from the other side, which Demo rats clearly refuse to do. One example: "What Pogrebin and Kelly left out of their story, yet reported in their book, is that the alleged victim doesn’t remember the incident and refuses to talk about it. That’s journalistic malpractice." Is it really too much to ask for "reporters" at "the paper of record" to, well, report such things in their article? (Using the Witch Hunt Epistemology of the Demo rats, the alleged victim's lack of memory should probably be attributed to drunkenness on her part.) (The linked NY Post piece also discusses - although this isn't new - the glaring holes in the Ramirez story about drunken junk-exposing at Yale.) Or: how is it that the author of the National Review piece could come up with ample grounds for skepticism, right on the spot (namely: how does the logistics of a classmate directing someone else's junk work? Witch Hunt answer: Kavanaugh must have been so blacked-out drunk that he didn't mind someone else pushing his junk in this or that direction), whereas elected rats treat the allegations as a basis for impeachment? (The phrase "journalistic malpractice" also comes up in that piece, for the same reason. So either some coordination of talking points is going on, or the authors are simply speaking common sense, independently. And it is common sense. The "paper of record" apparently lacks it.) One of the rats, Scumbag Kamala Harris - again, a career prosecutor who cannot fail to know about the obligation to hear both sides before rendering a verdict - appears to believe (both in 2018 and this time around) allegations after having heard only the allegation-side. Other things being equal, it is better for such a rat to remain a Senator where the alternative is being elevated to President. [Edit 9/16: Six '20 Demo rats on twitter immediately called for impeachment after the latest "news": Scumbag Harris, the two outright fools O'Rourke and Castro, Warren, Sanders and
Addendum #2: Even if Kavanaugh lied to Congress, that doesn't in any way vindicate or excuse the rats' epistemic criminality. (Heck, even if the accusations against him are true, the Dems did a terrible job of justifying their position that the accusations were credible, just as they routinely do a terrible job justifying their positions generally nowadays. Heck, even if Republicans are scumbags, that still doesn't vindicate Demo rats. The best they could hope to show in that case is that they're less scummy than Republicans, but I very much doubt that they could show that, either. Today's Demo rat party is too much of a sick puppy and, given the nature of epistemic justification, if they happen to be right about something [e.g. climate change] it is an accident. Since when do Demo rats listen to experts on subjects where the expertise would not vindicate the Dem viewpoint? They routinely ignore the majority of economists when it comes to the minimum wage, for example. And anyway, neither Dems nor Reps have particularly good arguments for rejecting libertarianism, and neither party is remotely progressive when it comes to philosophical education of the citizenry which is far and away the biggest no-brainer of all time.)
Addendum #3: Some more pro-Kavanaugh commentary that the epistemically reckless Demo rats ("epistemically reckless" is the minimum charge I would level at these willfully scummy creatures) can be relied upon to deliberately/culpably ignore: Dreher and Kimball. And it's not like it pleases me to say that the only thing Demo rats are reliable about these days is being intellectually reckless, lazy, etc. I would rather that they behave like decent human beings.
