Great post, with some really good points.

But I think we may disagree on how this applies to the Kavanaugh hearings. I don't think there was enough evidence for anything criminal, and a criminal trial should have a higher bar of evidence than a job interview.

"So, it was pointed out that he wasn’t under criminal investigation. He was in a job interview, and the allegations spoke more about his character overall. This is a very powerful line of attack, for several reasons. It reduces burden of proof while still allowing the accusers to make their accusations."

Not just any job interview. This was a Senate hearing to determine his fitness to serve as a justice on the US Supreme Court, where he would make decisions that would impact the legal, ethical and moral direction of the country for the rest of his life, at least 30-40 years.

So while the bar is lower for evidence of accusations than it would be for a criminal matter, the bar is much higher for the reverse. He should be held to a much higher standard than just to have not technically committed a crime.

I think Christine Blasey Ford's accusations are credible enough that they should be taken seriously. I'll concede that Julie Swetnick's might not be. But these incidents should be part of the hearing, and the Senate should decide on Kavanaugh based on the merits of the accusations.

"This is why we have the fourth amendment in America; unless you get a warrant with a legitimate reason to investigate, you aren’t allowed to go digging through a person’s private affairs."

If he had not been up for this job, and instead Balsey Ford was accusing him of sexual assault in a criminal context, then sure, the Fourth Amendment would apply. But Kavanaugh himself parsed the application of the Fourth Amendment re: NSA telephony metadata.

The FBI investigation into his background is completely warranted given the level of responsibility of the job in question. There are far lower jobs in the Federal government (and the private sector) where looking into a candidate's background to this level of detail is entirely acceptable and common.

If the accusations against Kavanaugh in his youth were true, that alone, IMHO, would not disqualify him from the job. It is possible to make mistakes in one's past and to show character later by showing remorse and making amends. But Kavanaugh did none of this. Instead he was defensive and denied everything, even making numerous statements that were clearly lies, contradicting his own testimony later in the hearings.

Contrary to some of my left-leaning political brethren, I've always believed that the perjury allegations against Bill Clinton were to be taken seriously 20 years ago, and in spite of all of the fact-checking that's technologically possible now vs. then, lying seems to have gotten so much easier for public officials.

Sexual assault, particularly 30 years later, is difficult to impossible to prove indisputibly, but Blasey Ford, whether credible or not, was not the one who was being vetted for the job. If the accusations were false or even half-true, which I am not qualified to say for sure, I do think that Kavanugh's handling of the situation was not becoming of a Justice of the Supreme Court. And the idea of an FBI investigation to understand the truth, something that should be hallowed ground for a legal mind deserving of a seat on the nation's highest court, was continuously rejected.

There are situations where false accusations can get out of hand. Some (though not all) of the #MeToo Movement has turned away from Harvey Weinstein and toward the likes of Garrison Keillor, and social media compounds the problem by trying cases in the court of public opinion. But the US Senate provides advice and consent on the President's nominations for the Supreme Court, among other posts, and they have an obligation to seek the truth in these hearings.

Kavanaugh was not treated in an unreasonable manner for the position in question, and as it turns out their ruling was in his favor in the end. So it looks like if the allegations were false, they did not stick (nor should they), so the system works. But if they did have merit, then the Senate voted largely along party lines to allow a severe misogynist (even if not a sexual predator), with poor judgement, an angry temperament and a record of perjury (in this hearing alone), to hold an office where he will rule on such issues as the investigation of the President himself. Sadly, I tend to believe the latter, and the final point definitely did not get as much airtime as it should have.

Again, I'd like to reiterate that this was a great post, and I appreciate the points raised. The great thing about Steemit is that, unlike other social networks, I don't have a curated newsfeed full of posts that fit neatly inside my own bubble of confirmation bias. So I am always happy to not only debate opposing viewpoints but also to unpack the viewpoints in-between, which sometimes require real thought and nuance.

Thanks again! Cheers!