The woman who claims that Judge Brett Kavanaugh tried, as a high school student, to assault her at a party has now said she won’t testify until after the FBI investigates. Never mind that the FBI has already done several very thorough background checks on Kavanaugh and has declined to look at claims of this incident from who-knows-what-year at who-knows-what-address, and also never mind that Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings have already been held.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s unconscionable withholding of this allegation until days before the committee vote is responsible for this mess. But her liberal colleagues love it. What a brilliant strategy! Why, maybe now they can delay the full Senate vote until after the midterms, when they perhaps will have just enough votes to derail Kavanaugh’s appointment. And if they don’t have the votes then, heck, maybe they can delay for a couple more years or longer, till after the 2020 election and the convening of the newly reconstituted Senate in 2021, and then see how it goes. Sure, they can keep a seat on the Supreme Court vacant for years if necessary! Why not?
Sen. Feinstein and her like-minded colleagues are ready to do whatever is necessary to keep this charade going. The ongoing circus would have the added benefit of taking attention off any news that might be made in the coming weeks from declassifying those previously redacted FBI documents.
So, the accuser's demand is this: FBI investigation of Judge Kavanaugh first, her testimony afterwards. But one of our go-to legal experts, Jonathan Turley, says it should be the other way around. “There may indeed be a basis for reopening the FBI background investigation,” he says, “but the priority is to get both the testimony of Ford and Kavanaugh under oath.”
Turley says it was correct for the Senate to delay the vote to give Ford a chance to testify. We don’t know much about her allegations, he points out, because we haven’t heard from her. She has the right to be heard, but she does not have the right to set the conditions before testifying under oath, as she is trying to do. Similarly, though some Democrats are saying that she has “a right to be believed,” she does not. No one does. Under due process, she has the right to be heard, but there is no legal right to be believed. (It’s not in the Constitution. Take a look.)
Even Sen. Feinstein has let it slip that she doesn’t know if everything Ford says is truthful. Now, that doesn’t necessarily mean Ford is deliberately lying, just that she might not be remembering what, in truth, happened. From what I’ve heard, most victims of assault can remember the place, the date (certainly the year), the situation, who was there, and many other details they’d probably LIKE to forget. This woman’s recollection is so vague and the incident happened so long ago that it’s easy to think she might be mistaken.
That can happen in therapy, especially with “recovered memories” many years later, the power of suggestion and sometimes hypnosis. If that were the case, she might pass a polygraph with flying colors by remembering something as true that didn’t really happen that way. Someone likely did behave aggressively towards her at some point, but it might have been another boy. The therapist’s notes don’t give his name, not even a first name. It might have been at a party that Kavanaugh didn’t even attend, but how can he establish that if there is no date, no location?
Anyway, Turley offers a good rationale for having the testimony come first. These two people may not remember much more than what we’ve already been told –- Kavanaugh says he remembers NOTHING because he was not THERE –- but we’d be able to establish for the record exactly what that is. “Once their testimony is locked in,” says Turley, “the Senate –- and the public –- will have a better idea of whether further investigation is warranted.”
That investigation would take the form of a reopened FBI background investigation and, from what some law enforcement experts are saying, might be completed in a matter of days. It would definitely NOT, according to Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, be an FBI criminal investigation.
At this writing, Dr. Ford has been given until 10AM Friday to let Congress know if she’s going to testify on Monday. It can be an open hearing, a closed hearing, or she can just be questioned by congressional staff. Amazingly, he is even offering to have the questioners travel to her location if that’s what she prefers. Prediction: If Sen. Grassley announces that Ford’s failure to testify Monday will trigger the scheduled vote, and the Republicans appear to have the votes to confirm, she’ll go under oath one way or another. Because the whole idea of this is to keep that vote from happening.
In his latest column for NATIONAL REVIEW, Andrew C. McCarthy echoes what we've been saying about the painfully obvious goal of Senate Democrats' use of Dr. Ford's claim, and he minces no words. Indeed, he says that if they're allowed to get what they want through tactics like these, the integrity of the Senate confirmation process will have been essentially destroyed. (Of course it will --- these people destroy everything they touch, and that's exactly what they mean to do.) Senate Republicans MUST stand firm.
McCarthy's column is an absolute must-read. He also includes a link to his previous column on the same subject,; it's a must-read, too.