Here we are, nearly a year after the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hysteria, once again relitigating the dubious allegations against the new Supreme Court justice. And unsurprisingly, this means we must re-engage in debate over just what the word “credible” means when applied to an accusation.

For several weeks last fall, the term “credible” was used abundantly in most major newspapers and online, with partisans insisting, over and over again that the sexual assault accusations against Kavanaugh were “credible,” though none of them ever seemed to stop and consider what the word actually means.

Eleven months later, we are at it again.

The New York Times just published another bizarre, tissue-thin accusation against Kavanaugh, as well as supposed “corroboration” of an earlier accusation against him. Neither claim lived up to the hype, but it set off a fresh wave of credibility mania.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, claimed that Kavanaugh had been “credibly accused of sexual assault” and called for his impeachment. New Yorker writer Jeffrey Toobin also wrote that Kavanaugh has been “credibly accused of sexual misconduct.” Meanwhile, the writers of the Times supposed “bombshell” said that one of Kavanaugh’s accusers, Deborah Ramirez, was herself “credible.” Calling for impeachment proceedings against Kavanaugh, Cory Booker referred to the “deeply troubling and credible allegations” against the justice, and other Democratic presidential candidates such as Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren joined him.

What does all of this really mean? How are we supposed to define “credible” and apply that definition to Kavanaugh’s accusers and their accusations against him?

The two principle ways to define “credible” appear to be “capable of being believed” and “worthy of belief or confidence.” As far as the former definition is concerned, the allegations against Kavanaugh are most assuredly “credible,” insofar as one is perfectly capable of believing that he sexually assaulted a woman several decades ago. It’s not an outrageous claim at all. Men do commit sexual assault, after all, and there’s nothing special about Kavanaugh that would render him incapable of doing so.

Yet what about “worthy of belief or confidence?” Here is where the definition breaks down, and the progressive parroting of this talking point becomes an embarrassing canard. There is actually very little about any of the claims against Kavanaugh that is worthy of belief.

We know, for instance, that nobody — not a single person — has been able to corroborate to any degree that the assault against Christine Blasey Ford happened. Even Ford’s old friend Leland Keyser, who Ford claimed was at the party where the assault allegedly happened, couldn’t confirm it. In fact, Keyser recently announced that she doesn’t believe Ford’s story.

We also know that Ford’s recollection of that night has changed several times, that she couldn’t pin down a date or a location for when the assault allegedly happened, that she couldn’t explain how she got home from the party, and that she told nobody about it for many years afterward.

Whatever else it is, this is not a credible accusation at all.

What about Deborah Ramirez’s claim that Brett Kavanaugh shoved his penis at her in a Yale dorm room over three decades ago? That story, too, has never been corroborated in any meaningful way — the closest it has ever come to being corroborated has been several people who said they heard about the incident, not that they witnessed it.

The circumstances surrounding Ramirez’s revelation are themselves deeply suspect: The New Yorker reported that she only remembered the incident “after six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney.” This is not credible, in fact it pushes credulity past the breaking point.

That’s not the same as saying they didn’t happen, as they could have, it’s just that there is no compelling evidence at this time to lead anyone to believe they did. On that basis, it was perfectly appropriate for the Senate to confirm Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, and it is profoundly reckless and dishonest for Democrats to call for his impeachment now.

Daniel Payne is a writer based in Virginia. He is an assistant editor for the College Fix, the news magazine of the Student Free Press Association. He blogs at Trial of the Century.