In 1998, a 26-year-old Beto O’Rourke was arrested for causing a wreck while drunk driving, but not before attempting to flee the scene and was only caught because another motorist was there to prevent him from escaping.

(Read: Troublesome Details Emerge About Beto O’Rourke’s Drunk Driving Incident)

O’Rourke’s DWI charges were oddly dismissed, but the fact that his father was a judge in El Paso at the time likely had something to do with it.

I’m not here to judge O’Rourke for something he did a long time ago. We all make mistakes in our past, and I know better men than me who were far worse men than me during their youth. I will raise the note that I see this kind of character repeated from O’Rourke even later on into his life, but the point of me telling that story is that it’s widely known now to the public.

The left does not consider O’Rourke’s past behavior a problem, and O’Rourke is only far too happy to tell you about it. The public knows of O’Rourke’s sins, and therefore, despite his continued patterns of shady behavior, is pure as the driven snow.

Supreme Court Nomine Brett Kavanaugh, however, is another story for the left.

According to Dianne Feinstein, an anonymous woman claims that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her while he was in high school. She has no proof, no corroborating claims, and had no intention of going public with her identity so that Kavanaugh can defend himself until recently. Her story is also odd in that when she originally told the story, Kavanaugh was not a character in it. He only seems to be now that he’s on the cusp of a position the left really doesn’t want him in.

Meanwhile, Kavanaugh does have corroborating witnesses who swear to his innocence, and a slew of character witnesses who attest to his goodness. The story has all the hallmarks of a total lie, and is, no doubt, a blatant last-ditch attempt to stop Kavanaugh from becoming a Supreme Court justice.

Despite the fact that this story is so unlikely to be true, the left sees it as unquestionably real. Why?

Because Kavanaugh denied that it happened.

This is Kafkatrapping at its worst, but it’s somehow a permissible tactic to engage in during today’s political and social discourse. The definition of a Kafkatrap is a denial somehow being pure proof that you did indeed do it because, despite evidence to the contrary, thou doth protest too much.

In this world, any protests against leftist narratives are far too much protesting, and thus an admission of guilt. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas went through the exact same thing Kavanaugh was going through and despite numerous discrepancies in Anita Hill’s story that point to the fact that she’s blatantly lying, the left still retains the idea that Thomas is guilty.

Why? Because Thomas is a Republican, and he denied it.

This “heads I win, tails you lose” concept is a common pattern we can see from the left. In fact, some of the #MeToo movement relied on the concept of denials being as good as admissions of guilt in quite a few instances. Jeremy Piven, Scott Baio, and others have denied allegations leveled at them, but in this day and age when we’re being encouraged to “believe women,” an accuser’s word is as good as fact and a denial is only going to make the sharks sensing blood in the water angry.

And the encouragement to think this way is everywhere, and involving pretty much any issue.

O’Rourke is a good guy because he fessed up to crimes that were going to be found out anyway because they’re public record. Kavanaugh may very well have committed no crimes that he’s accused of, and yet despite the fact that the story told against him has so many holes that it would hold water as well as a fishing net, Kavanaugh is now a rapist and a sexual abuser.

Kavanaugh’s guilt is solidified to the left, even if he’s found innocent beyond all shadow of a doubt. Even after he’s confirmed, the accusations will follow Kavanaugh around for the rest of his life. That’s a horrid thing to put on an innocent man all in the name of political posturing. All who do it should be ashamed.