As expected, Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) will take advantage of the extra time afforded them by the FBI investigation to further smear Brett Kavanaugh with spurious or irrelevant details from his childhood. It seems that this week's smear campaign will be centered around Kavanaugh's drinking in high school.
CNN has been traipsing alleged high school acquaintances in front of the camera to testify to Kavanaugh's "excessive" and "sloppy" drinking as a teenager. None of these witnesses can corroborate the sexual assault allegations, and in fact they have specifically said that they never witnessed him act sexually aggressive towards anyone. But their stories are supposed to be damning for Kavanaugh because, according to liberals, it proves that he lied under oath. It also speaks to his character, they say.
Here is the problem with both of those claims:
1. Kavanaugh did not lie under oath about his drinking.
He admitted that sometimes he drank too much. "Sometimes I had too many beers," were his exact words. These acquaintances use words like "sloppy" and "excessive," which are just different adjectives to describe "having too many beers." Are liberals really suggesting that a man might perjure himself if he does not describe his high school drinking in the same colorful language that his high school friends might describe it? That's absurd.
2. Kavanaugh's teenage drinking habits are irrelevant.
No rational or honest person cares how much Kavanaugh drank 35 years ago. It has nothing to do with anything. 80 percent of college students drink alcohol and half admit to binge drinking. Are they all rape suspects? It is not good or healthy to drink in excess, but how can this utterly normal, utterly commonplace activity be evidence that someone is a violent felon? If it is, then there are quite a lot of violent felons in the country. And I suspect there are more than a few in the liberal media and among Democratic lawmakers.
Here is something else to keep in mind: Brett Kavanaugh is nominated for the Supreme Court. His job will involve evaluating the constitutional implications of legal cases brought before him. His drunken high school antics do not call his character into question decades after the fact. People change. People grow up. But even if this whole process did reveal character flaws in Kavanaugh, provided that those character flaws don't include rape (which there is not a shred of evidence to support), why does it matter? Even if I agreed with the liberal smear that Kavanaugh is currently, even 35 years later, a man with a temper who drinks too much, it still wouldn't have any bearing whatsoever on his ability to fulfill his duties as a jurist on the Supreme Court.
Liberals tell us that Kavanaugh is "no choir boy." Fine. Who cares? We don't need him to be a choir boy. We just need him to understand the Constitution and apply it appropriately to the cases presented to him. That's all. He could be a belligerent scumbag and it really wouldn't matter as long as he can do the job. But, as it happens, he is not a belligerent scumbag.