Skip to main content

Kavanaugh’s Angry Defense: Not the only anger we have seen

Written By | Oct 10, 2018

SAN DIEGO:  Unable to prove the contradictory and uncorroborated sexual allegations against now sworn in Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Democrats have switched gears. We are now hearing that this was not a court trial. It was a job interview. In that context, they say, Kavanaugh should have been disqualified.

Diane Feinstein says,

“This is not a trial of Dr. Ford. It is a job interview for Judge Kavanaugh.”

As always, the mainstream media concurs.

Laura McGann of Vox says,

“The Bret Kavanaugh hearing isn’t a trial. It’s a job interview.”




Supposedly this is an important distinction. In a job interview, there need be no presumption of innocence.  Just ask

Senator Charles Schumer :

“There is no presumption of innocence or guilt when you have a nominee before you.”

The job interview comparison also helps with another distinction: In a job interview, a person’s demeanor is taken into account. Cory Booker, Spartacus himself, put this all together for us.


Lindsey Graham’s midterm theme: A referendum on Democrat witch trials

His words criticized Kavanaugh’s fiery defense and harpooned the presumption of innocence at the same time:

“When their credibility has been challenged by intimates, people that knew the candidate well, as a classmate. When his temperament has been revealed in an emotional moment, where he used language that, frankly, shocked a lot of us. And then ultimately, not whether he’s innocent or guilty — this is not a trial — but ultimately, has enough questions be raised that we should not move on to another candidate?”

Really Booker? It’s no longer about his guilt? It seemed to be about his guilt until the accusations fell apart one at a time.

Senator Booker: Groping for relevance

Speaking of guilt, Mr. Booker himself has openly admitted to groping a woman in his own past. In 1992, he wrote about an incident when he was 15.

“New Year’s Eve 1984 I will never forget. I was 15. As the ball dropped, I leaned over to hug a friend and she met me instead with an overwhelming kiss. As we fumbled upon the bed, I remember debating my next ‘move’ as if it were a chess game. With the “Top Gun” slogan ringing in my head, I slowly reached for her breast. After having my hand pushed away once, I reached my ‘mark.'”

Follow the logic: Kavanaugh made no such admission. And no such charge has been proved. But Booker is qualified to be a senator and Kavanaugh isn’t qualified to be a judge. Why isn’t he qualified? Simply on the basis of things being asserted? Simply because he got emotional while defending himself?

The unsubstantiated charge and the emotional defense remove his credibility? And who were the ones fanning the flame of this charge?  Booker and his fellow senators!



Interviewing for the Supreme Court

How well does the job interview comparison hold up? First, an opening on the Supreme Court is not listed on Zip Recruiter.  Nominees are nominated. Secondly, when was the last time anybody was accused of rape at your job interview?

“Sorry, your demeanor was too angry while we interviewed you. And you actually cried when we called you a rapist. Whether or not the allegations are true, your reaction to the interview itself clearly reveals that you do not have the proper temperament for the job.”


The death of the rule of law in favor of empowering political passion 

Supposedly, Kavanaugh showed too much emotion while defending himself against charges of drugging and gang raping. Supposedly, his angry reaction was inappropriate.  His words were too severe, words such as these:

“This confirmation process has become a national disgrace…The Constitution gives the Senate an important role in the confirmation process, but you have replaced advice and consent with search and destroy.”

He also got tearful while talking about his family and angry while calling out individual senators for some of the things they had said about him.

Kavanaugh has since apologized for part of his defense.

And that changes nothing!

He had nothing to apologize for. If he still chose to take the high ground, good for him!  It does not vindicate those who would pour salt in the wound of a man who got emotional because he was considered guilty of heinous crimes until proven innocent.

Is that the new standard from the left? Is it now wrong to get too emotional? Or is it only wrong for conservatives to get emotional? This is a fair question inasmuch as we have recently been barraged with emotional out busts from the left.

How many angry crowds have been screaming at senators all week? How many times have they cornered people in elevators or harassed them into leaving restaurants?

The Hawaiian Volcano

How much volcanic rhetoric has erupted from senators such as Maize Hirono? She sounded somewhat mad and emotional when she told all men to shut up:

“But really, guess who is perpetuating all of these kinds of actions? It’s the men in this country. And I just want to say to the men in this country: just shut up and step up, do the right thing for a change…Not only do women, like Dr. Ford, who bravely comes forward, need to be heard, but they NEED TO BE BELIEVED…”

Is Hirono still qualified to be a senator?

For that matter, was Hillary Clinton qualified to be president?

After the former Secretary-of-State was asked by Congress about her lies regarding the reason for the Benghazi attack, she shouted quite emotionally:

“What difference does it make?’
Flawed though she is, some people still want her as President

Putting aside the fact that in this case Mrs. Clinton had been caught red-handed saying one thing in public and another thing to her daughter by email, the point is, she got quite emotional and very angry! Nonetheless, people were still ready to make her president.

To be fair, Clinton should be judged more for her words in the present than the past. Just recently, she canonized the increasing harassment from leftist cohorts by shining off all notions of civility.

“You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about. That’s why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the house and/or the Senate, that’s when civility can start again.”

The translation is not difficult. If Americans don’t give Congress back to the Democrats, the Democrats won’t call off their dogs.

If the GOP is smart, quotations from Hillary Clinton, Maize Hirono, and Corey Booker will make up the body of their November midterm campaign ads. By comparison, it will serve to make Justice Kavanaugh and President Trump look like Mother Teresa.

This is Bob Siegel, making the obvious, obvious.

****

Bob Siegel is a weekend radio talk show host on KCBQ and a regular CommDigiNew columnist. His novel “The Dangerous Christmas Ornament” is a 2017 “Distinguished Favorite” of the Independent Press Award and the New York City Big Book Award. About Read lists this book as one of the Top 30 Recommended Action Adventure Books for 11-Year-Olds!

Bob Siegel

A graduate of Denver Seminary and San Jose State University, Bob Siegel is a radio talk show host and popular guest speaker at churches and college campuses across the country, using a variety of media including, seminars, formal debates, outdoor open forums, and one man drama presentations. In addition to his own weekly radio show (KCBQ 1170, San Diego) Bob has been a guest on many other programs, including The 700 Club, Washington Times Radio's Inside the Story, The Rick Amato Show, KUSI Television's Good Morning San Diego, and the world popular Jonathan Parkradio drama series, for which Bob guest starred in two episodes and wrote one episode, The Clue From Ninevah. In addition to CDN, Bob is a regular contributor for San Diego Rostra. Bob does a good deal of playwriting as well (14 plays & 5 collaborations), including the award winning, Eternal Reach. Bob has also published books of both fiction and non-fiction including; I'd Like to Believe In Jesus, But...and a fantasy novel, The Dangerous Christmas Ornament.