Anger is a reasonable response. Clarence Thomas reacted angrily to the “high-tech lynching,” and was criticized. Kavanaugh reacted with outrage to the even more voluminous and excessive attack on him, and he too has been criticized for it; it’s been argued by some that his righteous anger demonstrates that he lacks a the right judicial temperament. But it seems likely that at some point voters, too, will react with anger to Democrats’ revolting excesses. And voters always get the last laugh.
Feinstein’s withholding of the Ford letter for six weeks, during the first of which her staff recommended the hiring of the lawyer Debra Katz, left time for a two-question polygraph test and for Ford’s account to be altered in several particulars, as the detailed Sept. 30 memorandum by Judiciary Republicans’ sexual crimes professional Rachel Mitchell demonstrated. Ford’s testimony was further delayed, until 20 days after the regular hearings on Kavanaugh’s nomination ended, by claims that the Californian accuser was afraid of flying. The claim turned out to be bogus; she had taken many cross-country and trans-Pacific flights. Even so, when Ford delivered her testimony, it entirely lacked corroboration, and even the persons she cited as witnesses testified in writing that they knew of no events of the type she described. Ford’s lifelong friend Leland Keyser declared that she did not know Kavanaugh and had never met him.