The Bible advises that only a person without sin should be casting any stones. It is worth considering that advice when judging the work of the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee who were passing judgment on Judge Brett Kavanaugh.
Among the most self-righteous and pompous of the inquisitors was New Jersey Senator Cory Booker. He was willing to risk expulsion from the Senate by releasing classified documents that would further point the finger of guilt at Kavanaugh. It was, by his own hyperbolic description, his personal “Spartacus moment.”
Truth be known, the documents were not classified, he was in no danger of being booted from the Senate and the information contained in the documents provided no more evidence of sexual misconduct by Kavanaugh than the unverifiable accusation itself.
What made Booker’s performance so ironic was his own self-confessed sexual misconduct. Specifically, Booker, at the age of 15, “groped” a drunken high school friend as they kissed and rolled around on a bed. Sound familiar?
She rejected his initial attempt to fondle her breast, but Booker was not about to take “no” for an answer. He again imposed himself on the inebriated young lady. This time, as he put it, “I reached my mark.”
We know she was drunk because Booker said that she told him later as an excuse for her naughty behavior. Are we to believe that Booker was unaware of her vulnerable condition when he put himself upon her?
In 1992, when he was in his junior year at Stanford University, Booker ‘fessed up to the incident in his newspaper column. In the column, he claimed that he had reconsidered his role as an aggressive male looking to score — abandoning the advice he once received that “liquor is quicker.” Given his propensity for seeing himself in epic proportions, Booker may have fancied this as his St. Paul en route to Damascus moment.
While Booker seems to take great pride in having given up his brutish behavior, it seems – no, it is – hypocritical to disregard Kavanaugh’s exemplary adult life.
Booker was not the only hypocrite on the Democrat side of the panel. You had Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal, who seems to be in a contest with Booker for partisan pomposity.
In querying Kavanaugh, Blumenthal referenced a standard judicial instruction to jurors, si parum est considerare potes insidias omnia. For those of you who had neither a law school nor a Jesuit education, it means “if one lies in small things you can consider them lying in all things.”
For Blumenthal to bring up this bit of legal counsel is the very definition of chutzpah. (And for those who never go through a bar or bat mitzvah, it means “unmitigated gall”). Blumenthal’s case only deviates from the aforementioned jury instruction in that his notable lie was not a small thing. It was a disgraceful lie – or as my grandfather would say, “a whopper.”
On many occasions – in statements and in writing – Blumenthal referred to his service in Vietnam during the war. I was untrue. He claims it was inadvertent – a mistake. I mean, who couldn’t mistakenly believe you were in a war when you were not. It is sort of the opposite of being AWOL “absent without leave.” Blumenthal was PWOP, “present without presence.”
Blumenthal’s proof that it was an honest mistake was his claim that on other occasions he “more accurately and honestly represented his military service.” In other words, they were not lies because he did not MISrepresent his military service at every opportunity.
What is egregiously offensive about this lie is that it can be viewed of a violation of the law against “theft of valor” – claiming military activities and awards that never happened or were never earned. Those of us – like my own family – who have lost young men in war take particular umbrage at Blumenthal’s contemptible lies. And he is correct in referencing the judicial instruction because each time I see him on television, I see and hear a liar.
Hypocrite number three is California Senator Diane Feinstein. She ranted against what she considered Kavanaugh’s demeanor and his political partisanship. How could he be trusted to act and rule objectively within the restrictions of the sworn constitutional duties of a Supreme Court justice? He is too political – to partisan – she says.
But wait! Isn’t she the lady who manipulated the entire Christina Blasey Ford accusation for maximum political impact? Didn’t she violate her sworn duty to uphold the constitutional advice and consent process in favor of colluding and conspiring with Ford and her radical leftist attorneys – attorneys that Feinstein, herself, recommended? Didn’t she strategically withhold information from the Committee for six weeks – preventing the accusations by Ford to be addressed in a proper and timely manner?
The answer to all-of-the-above is yes, yes and yes.
I have often stated that hypocrisy is not a sin in politics. It is a condition of employment. Just that sometimes the sin is a lot bigger than others. Booker, Blumenthal and Feinstein might sound like the name of a law firm, but it is really a triumvirate of hypocrites.
