“An allegation standing alone is not necessarily sufficient to conclude that conduct occurred,” stated Susan Ellingstad, the attorney hired by the Minnesota Democrat Party to investigate the allegations of domestic violence against DNC Deputy Chairman and Rep. Keith Ellison. Recall back in early August, Ellison’s ex-girlfriend and leftist activist Karen Monahan accused him of physically and emotionally abusing her. Ellison, who is currently running for Minnesota attorney general, welcomed Ellingstad’s findings from what he termed an “impartial” investigation.

Ellison’s opponent, Republican Rep. Doug Wardlow, quickly blasted the notion that the Democrats’ in-house investigation was “impartial,” asserting, “As predicted, the sham ‘investigation’ led by the DFL (Democrat-Farmer-Labor) party attorney’s legal partner has concluded in favor of the party’s Attorney General candidate. But the publicly available evidence contradicts that conclusion.”

University of Minnesota political science professor Larry Jacobs echoed Wardlow’s sentiments, stating, “I don’t know why anyone would be surprised by that. The Democrat Party hires lawyers close to the Democratic Party to investigate a sensitive candidate, and they come back saying ‘not enough here.’ I don’t think that was surprising.”

Meanwhile, Democrats and their cohorts in the mainstream media continue to parrot completely unsubstantiated and uncorroborated allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh as justification for assuming his guilt. The Democrats’ hypocritical double standard could not be more obvious. When allegations are made against their own, they demand the application of the correct and just judicial standard: innocent until proven guilty. (And then even in the face of overwhelming evidence, they sometimes stand by their man.) Yet whenever accusations fly against their political opponents, they demand the opposite: The accused must be presumed guilty (due to the seriousness of the charge) and the accuser’s self-proclaimed victim status must never be called into question. If credible evidence is lacking, that still isn’t justification for doubting the validity of the allegations. In the end, a cloud of probable guilt must hang over the head of any “credibly” accused conservative individual, even if no substantiating evidence is ever found. Clarence Thomas knows a thing or two about that.