Posted on 09/19/2018 9:45:05 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Congress is accustomed to conditional spending and conditional adjournments. It is not as accustomed to conditional witnesses. Nevertheless, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford has made her testimony on allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh conditional on the FBI launching an investigation into whether he tried to rape her in high school.
The new condition conflicts with assurances from Ford’s counsel that she was prepared to state her allegations under oath before the committee if it delayed its scheduled vote on Kavanaugh.
Ford’s demand is, to put it simply, out of line – with her prior statements, and with congressional precedent. It is not that the FBI has not investigated such allegations; it did so with Clarence Thomas. However, there is no precedent for a quid pro quo demand for testimony by a witness. Individuals can certainly refuse to testify, yet conditioning testimony on a criminal investigation by a federal agency is well beyond the province of any witness. There may indeed be a basis for reopening the FBI background investigation, but the priority is to get both the testimony of Ford and Kavanaugh under oath.
This demand is the latest twist in an increasingly confusing record. Ford originally sent a letter to Congress to ask that her allegations be considered by the committee before voting on Kavanaugh. She then demanded that she be left in anonymity – denying Kavanaugh an opportunity to know who had accused him. After her letter was leaked to the media, Ford came forward publicly and said she would testify before the committee. Now she is saying she will not testify unless her demand for an FBI investigation is met.
The letter from Ford’s counsel states, "While Dr. Ford’s life was being turned upside down, you and your staff scheduled a public hearing for her to testify at the same table as Judge Kavanaugh in front of two dozen U.S. Senators on national television to relive this traumatic and harrowing incident."
She added that she has no intention of appearing for an “interrogation by Senators who appear to have made up their minds that she is 'mistaken' and 'mixed up.'” However, it could hardly be a surprise to Ford that Republican senators would be skeptical or hostile to her claim.
Indeed, we do not know a great deal about Ford’s allegations because we have not heard from Ford. A Senate confirmation vote was correctly delayed to do precisely that. Ford has every right to expect to be heard on these very serious allegations. She does not have the right to set conditions before testifying under oath.
Where Ford is correct is that she should not be required to sit next to Kavanaugh to give such testimony, if that was indeed the plan. Such an arrangement would be a clearly inappropriate condition by the committee. Ford says Kavanaugh tried to rape her and that she has dealt with that trauma for years; it would be outrageous to require her to sit next to the man who allegedly sexually assaulted her.
While Democratic senators such as Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Mazie Hirano (D-Hawaii) have already declared they believe Ford, there has been no testimony from either party. Moreover, while Democrats have insisted Ford has a “right to be believed,” there are basic principles of due process that establish a right to be heard, not a right to be believed. Kavanaugh categorically denies these allegations; he has no less and no more right to be believed. This, apparently, was the position of ranking committee member Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who said Ford had been "profoundly impacted" by her experience and “I can't say everything is truthful, I don't know."
If Ford refuses to testify, she could resolve this matter for members on the fence in favor of Kavanaugh. No question, walking into that committee room would be a terrible burden for anyone; it takes courage to come forward in any case of alleged sexual assault, and doubly so when you must do so before tens of millions of people. However, Ford asked Congress to take her allegations seriously and it is doing so. Either she puts her allegations on the record under oath, or those allegations will remain unproven and unsupported.
I have been critical of the degree of documents withheld from the Senate as well as the unilateral labeling of other documents as “Committee Confidential.” I still believe further disclosure should be made of Kavanaugh’s record before a final vote. Moreover, Democrats are correct about the needless expedited pace of this confirmation. However, if Ford does not testify, it would magnify criticism of Democrats holding this letter since July, as well as suspicions over the timing of leaking it just before the committee vote. Democrats have made no secret of their desire to force a vote until after the midterm elections in November. An FBI investigation would conveniently accomplish that.
It would be useful to interview any witnesses, and that may be where this should lead. However, Democrats themselves did not move with particular dispatch since July in locating possible witnesses. As for Ford, her counsel stated publicly that it is simply not her job (or her counsel’s) to determine if there are corroborating witnesses. So, while arranging a polygraph examination, her counsel did not reportedly seek out witnesses to support the claims of her client, including high school friends.
In reality, Kavanaugh was more likely to face an “interrogation” than Ford. Republican senators were clearly leery of being seen as roughing up an alleged sexual assault victim, and potentially losing women voters in the midterms. There was no such reluctance with Kavanaugh, who was always looking at an aggressive, unrelenting examination by Democrats.
The key to holding testimony is to establish under oath exactly what these two individuals remember; it might not be much beyond what is already known. Feinstein stated this week that she could not recall whether she contacted Ford six weeks ago. Yet, these witnesses would be expected to recall details from 36 years ago. Once their testimony is locked in, the Senate – and the public – will have a better idea of whether further investigation is warranted.
The only condition for either witness that will be recognized by the Senate is that their testimony will be truthful. If Ford will not testify, the Senate committee would have grounds to move toward to a final vote. That may avoid the “interrogation,” only to clear the path to confirmation.
Have chair for her on Monday, whether she shows or not. Then, give Kavanaugh the forum to answer the charges once and for all. If she doesn’t show, submit a statement from Kavanaugh into the record, then hold the committee vote.
Some serious retribution should be forthcoming to both Ford and DiFi as well (not to mention the Chinese spy thing).
Consequences are called for not only for what they’ve done and what they’ve tried to do, but to deter future stunts like this.
If they continue to risk nothing, and even enrich themselves from it, it will never stop.
“Ford’s demand is, to put it simply, out of line”
Obviously you hate women, especially those women brave enough to go up against powerful men. /s
Her ‘serious allegations’ don’t earn her the right?
She scored big points with Dems for them.
“...Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who said Ford had been “profoundly impacted” by her experience..”
She’s “profoundly impacted” by being a mentally ill individual...not by anything Bret didn’t do. Even her students know she she’s insane.
This is all theatre, coordinated by a bunch of socialist pukes who don’t want to see an originalist SCOTUS majority.
True, but he misses the mainpoint.Which is that Ford has no *need* to set conditions, nor any good reason.
It is merely the usual smarmy dishonesty and uncivil behavior by LIB lunatics. What’s new?
They should subpoena her and compel her to appear.
If she/Feinstein withdraw the complaint and admit it is without foundation, then she doesn’t have to appear.
You know it, I know it, anyone knowledgeable knows it. The question is, how do smart people react to this hate filled lying charade.
She’s like, “Hear my story, hear my story” and when the committee says they’ll give her a chance to tell her story then she puts conditions on it. I suspect she never wanted to testify at all.
The FBI must prove I am lying before I testify. If they cannot prove it, then I will testify... under oath.
DiFi no longer has a Chinese spy to drive her around. Now she takes a gas suckin’ beater Ford everywhere she goes.
To put it simply; if she doesn’t show up for the video interview with the committee on Monday she is admitting to the world she lied through her teeth in order to derail Judge BK’s confirmation.
The civil suits and possible criminal charges will likely follow the confirmation.
If she does show up and lies then criminal charges may be brought up against her for lying under oath and a prison sentence to follow.
In short; she’s screwed and not in a good way. Rabid leftism, in this case, may exact a steep price.
Feinstein should be sanctioned and her security clearance pulled after this as well. Her bad judgment in this and keeping a spy in her employ for 20 years has proven she is not the person for the job. Never was really.
The Committee needs to subpoena Facebook, Twitter, all social media sites, to discover what all she scrubbed.
Actually THAT is a good reason for all this (why the aged leftist hung onto this issue so long)
Feinstein trying to deflect from her criminal negligence with the whole chinese spy issue
Someone call Rush
Plenty of prison cells available next to obama’s and hillary’s
BKMK
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.