In the days following the assassination of Charlie Kirk, a congressional House resolution introduced by Republicans to honor him passed with bipartisan support. Among Democrats, ninety-five supported the resolution, fifty-eight did not, while thirty-eight voted “present,” and twenty-two abstained. The Kirk vote, unlike June’s resolution honoring the slain Minnesota state representative and her husband, would not be unanimous.

Even with the resolution passing, some Democrats who voted “yes” felt obliged to explain themselves to supporters. Among them was Rep. Mikie Sherrill’s (D, NJ) official House press release that claimed: “Charlie Kirk was advocating for a Christian nationalist government and to roll back the rights of women and Black people.” She would additionally call Kirk’s views “racist” and “anti-American,” all without producing any evidence or explanation to substantiate her claims.

This is not the first time that Rep. Sherrill has made inflammatory and unsupported claims against someone she opposes or disagrees with. Less than a week after the chaotic and unfortunate events at the Capitol building on January 6th, recall that the New Jersey Democratic congresswoman, and now a candidate in a close New Jersey governor’s race, went public on a Facebook Live broadcast to make brazen accusations against Republican members of Congress.

She would claim to witness them leading people through the Capitol the previous day, January 5th, in what she termed "reconnaissance for the next day." However, she could not identify the Republicans who led these alleged "reconnaissance" tours, ascertain who was in the tour groups, or explain how she knew they were connected to the incursion.

In that video she further took aim at members of Congress whom she believed incited the agitated crowd. She vowed to see they were held accountable and if necessary, ensure they didn't serve in Congress. After publicly making her accusations, Sherrill was never then able to proffer any evidence or proof to back up her claims. Neither did law enforcement or federal prosecutors investigating the events of January 6th provide any evidence to corroborate such allegations.

What she did in both episodes was to presume intentions or guilt with sweeping foregone conclusions driven by her personal politics, while not bringing receipts to back herself up. But in each case her narrative was clear; it was seditious behavior by House Republicans at the Capitol, further piqued by her pledge to see that someone was “held accountable.” In her statements on the Kirk resolution, she would harshly condemn Kirk’s conservative views and movement while doubling down with her rhetoric to also attack President Trump.

Further, wrapped inside her assault on Charlie Kirk’s views, Sherrill would cynically give herself a thin patina of political cover for her gubernatorial candidacy with backhanded support of a murdered victim’s First Amendment rights and a pledge to fight other perceived injustices. Regardless, the look -- a voter’s impression -- is not a good one for Sherrill.

Sherrill’s accusations against Charlie Kirk, like the earlier ones against Republicans in Congress, are serious and should not be dismissed. As in earlier days, such accusations are seen as a challenge to defend one’s honor, particularly given the gravity of her accusations of seditious behavior against her congressional peers and Charlie Kirk espousing un-American views. Hamilton and Burr famously dueled -- ironically also in New Jersey -- over less.

As a Naval Academy graduate who lived under that institution’s Honor Code that stresses “fairness” and “integrity,” Sherrill displayed poor judgment; she knew better than to have gone public with politically-charged accusations without tangible evidence or proof of wrongdoing to corroborate her claims. As a former Naval officer, if she were still wearing her service uniform and made such serious, unsubstantiated allegations against a fellow officer -- very publicly no less -- she would surely have faced consequences in the form of professional repercussions, ostracism, or possible disciplinary action.

An apology from Congresswoman Sherrill is in order… again. Giving no proof or evidence to support her accusations against Charlie Kirk, the honorable thing for Sherrill -- the Naval Academy graduate -- to do is publicly apologize. If no apology is forthcoming for her misguided and ill-timed statements about Charlie Kirk and his views, especially in the immediate aftermath of his murder, come this fall New Jersey voters should exact political consequences from a candidate seeking their vote who unrepentantly makes unfounded allegations to obtain political gain and is making a habit of it.

Image: Joeshmonobody