Much more on Christine Blazey Ford.

It's perfectly clear now...Ms Ford left wing activist. Now that left wing activist Ms. Christine Blazey Ford has come forward, some interesting things about her are beginning to surface. Knowing this would happen, perhaps it's the real reason why Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) kept these allegations secret since July. Here is what we now know that we didn't just a few hours ago: 1) The brother of Christine Blazey Ford worked for Fusion GPS, subcontracted Steele's firm to compile the Trump Russian Dossier.....Wow, what a coincidence. 2) Martha G. Kavanaugh, the mother of Brett Kavanaugh, was a Maryland district judge in 1996. She was the judge in a foreclosure case in which Christine Blasey Ford’s parents were the defendants. Martha Kavanaugh ruled against the parents of Christine Blasey Ford in the foreclosure case. Could there be residual resentment? The foreclosure case against Paula K. Blasey and Ralph G. Blasey was opened on August 8, 1996. The case number is 156006V.34 3) Ford's lawyer is a big Democrat donor who was involved in the Clinton / Paula Jones case. 4) Christine Blazey Ford is a far left professor and an open-borders activist who has signed anti-Trump immigration letters. 5) She also deleted her social media accounts just before coming forward. What would her activist posts reveal? 6) An "online professor rating site" has numerous reviews by from her students. Some say that they think she's crazy, and they were actually scared by her behavior.

Let's skip all the semantics, and let's skip these facts.
- She was a minor child at a party where there was alcohol served to other minors.
- She can't give any details beyond "he tried to" meaning unsuccessfully.
- All of the so-called witnesses can't or won't corroborate her claim.
- No charges were ever filed, she became a productive member of society despite her claim
- She waited 36 years and her timing and political affiliation is too convenient.
- Kavanaugh was a minor child at the time, and he was allegedly inebriated, therefore not in his right mind.
- At worst (back then), he would have been taken home to his parents by the authorities.

But let's say he actually did it, for argument purposes. Let's say that they were both at a party where alcohol was served to minor children. Let's say that today's laws took effect, meaning he would have gone to juvy, she would have told her parents, the home owners would have charges filed against them for hosting an alcohol party for minors. Let's say he actually 'touched' her and tried something, albeit unsuccessful. Let's pretend for a minute that it was really traumatic for her.

What I seriously want to know is why a grown man who has clearly made a life for himself - and has changed as an adult like most everyone else does - is having his decades long career put in the brink over something that happened 36 years ago when he was a juvenile?

I can't imagine how many thousands of juveniles had crossed that line and yet they grew up to be upstanding citizens and pillars of their respective communities. Should we bring all of them to the media to answer for something they did as a minor child and make them an example?
This could be very exhausting.