With the Senate Judiciary Committee set to send Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the full Senate for a vote to confirm him as the Supreme Court’s newest justice, Democrats have what they claim is a judicial equivalent of an election’s October surprise.
It’s based upon a letter Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., received two months ago, but she only brought to light Thursday in a cryptic statement revealing nothing of substance.
"I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court," Feinstein said, before adding that she turned the matter over to the FBI.
"That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision” [emphasis added].
The person who penned the letter expressly didn’t want to press the matter further, so Feinstein ignored that request by sending the letter to the FBI.
Furthermore, her idea of “confidentiality” was to churn the D.C. rumor mill, prompting salacious speculation to run amok. And the timing of this “information,” after holding on to it for two months, is an obvious attempt to derail the confirmation proceedings.
The New York Times purported to add some substance to the rumor, reporting that, according to anonymous sources, it involved "possible sexual misconduct between Judge Kavanaugh and a woman when they were both in high school."
Think Progress picked that up and added to it, claiming that “Brett Kavanaugh has a mysterious #MeToo problem,” adding ominously, “and ‘federal investigative authorities’ are involved.”
The Guardian had its own source who claimed the incident wasn’t even sexual — it was a case of high school hijinks.
"A source who said they were briefed on the contents of the letter said it described an incident involving Kavanaugh and a woman that took place when both were 17 years old and at a party,” The Guardian reported. “According to the source, Kavanaugh and a male friend had locked her in a room against her will, making her feel threatened, but she was able to get out of the room."
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, intended to schedule a committee vote Thursday, but Democrats were able to stall it another week, to Sept. 20.
That one-week adjournment was the Democratic committee members’ right and should have been their last-ditch effort to stall Kavanaugh’s confirmation.
Then poof, all of a sudden this secret letter magically appeared in an obvious attempt to gum up the works. But it wasn’t all of a sudden. Feinstein held on to it since July, but waited until Thursday to reveal its existence.
Oddly enough, the letter’s contents were significant enough to send to the FBI, but:
— They weren’t significant enough to send it two months ago when she first received it.
— They weren’t significant enough to share with committee Republicans.
— They weren’t significant enough to question Kavanaugh himself about last week, circumventing all principles of due process and denying him the opportunity to answer any accusations against him.
Feinstein, a lawyer and former prosecutor, should have known better. Her tactics were frighteningly Orwellian and smacked of Star Chamber tactics.
Not to be outdone by Feinstein (and in an attempt to make herself once-again relevant), twice-failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton came up with her own “shocker” Thursday to derail the Kavanaugh confirmation.
“Judge Kavanaugh dissented when the D.C. appeals court ruled in 2011 that the city could ban semiautomatic rifles and require handgun registration,” Clinton tweeted. “He argued that courts shouldn't consider the public safety benefits of gun laws: ‘Our task is to apply the Constitution.’”
Kavanaugh’s statement that “Our task is to apply the Constitution” should disqualify him? Everyone who cares about the Constitution can be thankful she lost her presidential bid.
No doubt keeping abreast of the Kavanaugh hearings, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, observed at a George Washington University Law School event this week that the confirmation process was becoming entirely too partisan.
"The atmosphere in '93 was truly bipartisan. The vote on my confirmation was 96-3, even though I had spent about 10 years of my life litigating cases under the auspices of the ACLU, and I was on the ACLU board and one of their general counsels," she said.
"That's the way it should be, instead of what it's become, which is a highly partisan show," she added, in a rare moment in which conservatives could find agreement with the far-left jurist.
Meanwhile, Grassley said that so far, he’s heard nothing to dissuade him from holding a committee vote on Sept. 20 as scheduled. At least someone has retained some sanity.
Michael Dorstewitz is a retired lawyer and has been a frequent contributor to BizPac Review and Liberty Unyielding. He’s also a former U.S. Merchant Marine officer and an enthusiastic Second Amendment supporter, who can often be found honing his skills at the range. To read more of his reports — Click Here Now.
© 2022 Newsmax. All rights reserved.