How many people know that Joe Biden has scurrilously defamed an innocent man in the death of Biden’s first wife, Neilia, and infant daughter, Naomi? This matters. It is not a small thing.
Neilia and Naomi Biden were tragically killed, and his sons Hunter and Beau severely injured, on December 18, 1972 when the family car was broadsided by a truck while Neilia was taking the kids Christmas shopping. An investigation by authorities revealed no evidence that the driver of the truck, Curtis Dunn, had been drinking, according to the man who headed up the investigation, Delaware Judge Jerome Herlihy. Yet, according to media reports, that didn’t stop Joe Biden from suggesting on at least two occasions since the truck driver’s death in 1999 that Dunn was under the influence, saying at least once that Mr. Dunn, “allegedly… drank his lunch.”
Imagine that you are the child of that truck driver, and that your father had been haunted by that accident until his very death, despite having no culpability for the crash. And then you learn that the now-famous husband of the woman killed in the accident is falsely suggesting in public speeches that your father had been intoxicated and caused the accident. Your father is not even around anymore to defend himself. Would you not seethe in anger? Such is the position in which Pam Hamill, the daughter of Mr. Dunn, finds herself.
Biden is famous, or infamous in the eyes of many, for cavalierly throwing out patently false information. His supporters have tried to slough off this penchant as an endearing quality in a loquacious, otherwise-charming mensch politician. Those not so smitten with “Uncle Joe” mock him for his verbal gaffes. But it is one thing to commit a “gaffe” – an unintentional misspeaking – and another thing to deliberately state a falsehood. And even worse, to speak such an untruth in a seeming effort to embellish one’s own personal history at the expense of another, perhaps to appear a yet more sympathetic character than the circumstances already dictate. That might be called calumny.
Biden himself has clumsily tried to address his issue of telling the truth, or not telling the truth, in a rather bizarre way. Last August, at the tail end of a stump speech in Iowa, Biden said, “Everybody knows who Donald Trump is. Even his supporters know who he is. We got to let him know who we are. We choose unity over division. We choose science over fiction. We choose truth over facts."
We choose truth over facts? Huh?
Elizabeth Warren is another top Democratic politician who shows a similar tendency for throwing out the “little lie” for the purpose of creating a more compelling personal history. Warren claimed in her memoir, A Fighting Chance, and later in campaign stump speeches, that she was a speech pathologist in Riverdale, New Jersey in 1971, her school principal wished her “good luck” and did not rehire her for the next academic year because she was “visibly pregnant.” However, documents obtained by the Washington Free Beacon, show that in fact Ms. Warren’s rehiring was approved by the Riverdale Board of Education for the following year, but that she tendered her resignation, which was accepted by the school board “with regret.”
Putting aside the arguably much larger lies that Ms. Warren used to build a law school academic career, and thereby a political career, with risibly false claims of being “Native American,” what does it say about a person’s character that they would defame another – such as a hapless school principal – for no other purpose than to advance a victimology narrative in pursuit of higher political office?
Perhaps the most bizarre example of this cavalier defaming of another in order to benefit oneself politically was Hillary Clinton actually accusing a senior US Army officer and congresswoman, Major Tulsi Gabbard, of being a “Russian asset.” This accusation is breathtaking. And it was not said (presumably) after Mrs. Clinton had knocked back a few cocktails with some gal pals in a Georgetown salon. She said it in an interview for a popular Democratic Party podcast, Campaign HQ, hosted by Barack Obama’s former campaign manager, David Plouffe, knowing full well that it would be picked up and re-broadcast far and wide.
Think about that. Here you have a former First Lady, U.S. senator, Secretary of State, and Democratic Party presidential nominee accusing a fellow Democrat currently contending for their party’s presidential nomination of being a “Russian asset.” That means a secret operative working for the Russian government against her own country. Clinton was accusing Congresswoman Gabbard of treason, claiming that the Russians had “groomed” Gabbard for the purpose of her mounting a third-party candidacy, and thereby ensuring Donald Trump’s re-election in 2020.
I am not a special pleader for Rep. Gabbard. There is little we agree on politically. But there is something especially revolting about Hillary Clinton, who has a long history of disdaining our military – from leaving Navy SEALs to die in Benghazi to not wanting military aides to wear their uniforms in the White House – accusing a currently serving Army officer (Hawaii Army National Guard) who has served in combat of disloyalty to her nation. Tulsi Gabbard should be honored for volunteering to wear our nation’s uniform and serving in its military ranks.
Of the seemingly countless things that Hillary Clinton has done and said to deserve being discarded upon the ash heap of American history in her long and sorry tenure on the American political scene, this particular exchange with David Plouffe should be the one that finally consigns her to political oblivion.
But not in the eyes of the ever-fawning Deep State Media. Of one thing we can be sure: The DSM will always have the backs of their beloved politicians who toss out not-so-little lies to burnish their image. The American people deserve far better.
William F. Marshall has been an intelligence analyst and investigator in the government, private, and non-profit sectors for more than 30 years. He is a senior investigator for Judicial Watch, Inc. and a contributor to Townhall, American Thinker, and The Federalist. (The views expressed are the author’s alone, and not necessarily those of Judicial Watch.)