This second accusation should have never made it to print

Win McNamee/Getty Images

Have you ever noticed the little stopwatch timer that pops up right after you Google something? For example, I just googled something that pulled up 128 million results, that Google says, took point six seven seconds to generate. Maybe it's just me, but that's fascinating. It turns out, point seven seconds is about the average. The information age is amazing… but it's also dangerous. It turns out, point seven seconds is also just about the time it takes to assassinate someone's credibility. There's no better example than what's happening right now with Brett Kavanaugh.

Another allegation was lobbed at Kavanaugh last night. This one comes from Deborah Ramirez, a Yale classmate of Kavanaugh, who told the New Yorker that Kavanaugh thrust his penis in her face causing her to touch it. She claims that both of them were highly intoxicated.

RELATED: Confirming Kavanaugh: Welcome to the #MeToo era

Ok, first off, this story should have never made it to print. It's telling that The New Yorker ran it while the New York Times and Washington Post stayed away. Ramirez admits that she had to spend six days quote, "assessing her memories" before recalling what had happened. She also admits that there are quote, "significant gaps in her memories of the evening." Like the Ford allegation, no one can corroborate this and Kavanaugh has flat out denied it ever happened.

So how did this make it into a national publication? Did the rules of journalism change or suddenly spontaneously combust? Of course they didn't, but sadly it seems as if there are hardly any real journalists left. Advocates and torchbearers have taken their place. And in a digital world where you can assassinate someone's character in point seven seconds, the truth doesn't matter to these people. If someone makes a false claim on Twitter, it'll get tweeted 10,000 times. The correction, even if it comes from the original poster, will only get - what? - 10 or 20 retweets?

That's what Democrats are doing to Kavanaugh. They know it - and sadly - so does Kavanaugh. It really is amazing what we're seeing right now. The Left has taken this hearing and completely turned the rules upside down. The term "reasonable doubt" has always meant that - if it exists - you have to assume the accused is innocent. The Left has now re-written the definition. There's no evidence or even one single corroborating witness to any of these claims.

Can you imagine living under a government where reasonable doubt always sided towards the prosecution?

That's enough to get you laughed out of a courtroom. But for some reason, "the resistance" wants reasonable doubt to shift towards the accuser. And, keep in mind, these are the very same people that are supposedly for criminal justice and prison reform. If reasonable doubt shifted towards the accuser, can you imagine how full our prisons would be? Can you imagine living under a government where reasonable doubt always sided towards the prosecution?

If there's no evidence or witnesses to any of these claims, Kavanaugh will get confirmed. Senate Democrats know this just as sure as everyone else. But I don't think that's their ultimate goal here anymore. This is all about the mid-terms and 2020. The Supreme Court confirmation hearing was just a tool the Left used to influence another court… the court of public opinion.

Sen. Ted Cruz: NOBODY should be afraid of Trump's Supreme Court justice pick

Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) joined Glenn Beck on the radio program Wednesday to weigh in on President Donald Trump's potential Supreme Court nominees and talk about his timely new book, "One Vote Away: How a Single Supreme Court Seat Can Change History."

Sen. Cruz argued that, while Congressional Democrats are outraged over President Trump's chance at a third court appointment, no one on either side should be afraid of a Supreme Court justice being appointed if it's done according to the founding documents. That's why it's crucial that the GOP fills the vacant seat with a true constitutionalist.

Watch the video below to hear the conversation:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) joined Glenn Beck on the radio program Wednesday to talk about why he believes President Donald Trump will nominate Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death.

Lee, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee that will consider and vote on the nominee, also weighed in on another Supreme Court contender: Judge Barbara Lagoa. Lee said he would not be comfortable confirming Lagoa without learning more about her history as it pertains to upholding the U.S. Constitution.

Watch the video below to hear the conversation:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

This week on the Glenn Beck Podcast, Glenn spoke with Vox co-founder Matthew Yglesias about his new book, "One Billion Americans: The Case for Thinking Bigger."

Matthew and Glenn agree that, while conservatives and liberals may disagree on a lot, we're not as far apart as some make it seem. If we truly want America to continue doing great things, we must spend less time fighting amongst ourselves.

Watch a clip from the full interview with Matthew Yglesias below:


Find the full podcast on Glenn's YouTube channel or on Blaze Media's podcast network.

Want to listen to more Glenn Beck podcasts?

Subscribe to Glenn Beck's channel on YouTube for FREE access to more of his masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, or subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

'A convenient boogeyman for misinformation artists': Why is the New York Times defending George Soros?

Image source: Simon Dawson/Bloomberg via Getty Images

On the "Glenn Beck Radio Program" Tuesday, Glenn discussed the details of a recent New York Times article that claims left-wing billionaire financier George Soros "has become a convenient boogeyman for misinformation artists who have falsely claimed that he funds spontaneous Black Lives Matter protests as well as antifa, the decentralized and largely online, far-left activist network that opposes President Trump."

The Times article followed last week's bizarre Fox News segment in which former House Speaker Newt Gingrich appeared to be censored for criticizing Soros (read more here). The article also labeled Glenn a "conspiracy theorist" for his tweet supporting Gingrich.

Watch the video clip below for details:


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.