Telling the Senate Judiciary Committee that she won’t testify until the FBI finishes its nonpartisan investigation into charges by Christine Blasey Ford that 53-year-old Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her 36-years-ago at a high school party in Maryland. Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) invited Blasey-Ford and Judge Kavanaugh to tell her stories before the Committee Monday, Sept. 24. Not responding for 36 hours, Blasey-Ford’s attorney Lisa Banks told Grassley where it’s at. “There’s no reason that we should have a public hearing on Monday . . . this is being rushed through, and it’s too important to be rushed through. It’s not a game, this is a serious situation,” said Banks. In case Banks checked, she’s not calling the shots for the Senate Judiciary Committee. President Trump would have to ask the FBI to investigate Judge Kavanaugh.
Grassely’s well within the Committee’s rights to extend the invitation to Blasey-Ford to tell her story at a convenient date, not for Blasey-Ford or her attorney, but for the Committee. It’s no excuse for Banks to say there’s no “rush” when it insinuates the Committee would be partisan. Calling for an investigation is not the role of Blasey-Ford’s attorney but to arrange for her client to tell her story at a time designated by the Committee. Since when do witnesses tell Congressional Committees when to hold hearings? Telling Grassley that FBI investigation should be “the first step” before Blasey-Ford is put “on national television before conducting any hearing more making any decision,” is outrageous. It’s Blasey-Ford making an unsubstantiated allegation on a Supreme Court nominee. Grassley must remind Banks that if her client chooses not to attend the Sept. 24 hearing, it’s her business.
No one on the Committee can assume any facts in evidence until Blasey-Ford makes her case on national TV or in closed session. Grassley said she could have it either way: With cameras or not. No witness or private attorney can dictate terms of Congressional hearings. Whether Banks thinks it’s rushing things or not, Congressional Committees have timetables, independent of private citizens. Banks told the Committee in a letter that she wants to “ensure the crucial facts and witnesses in the matter are assessed in a nonpartisan manner and that the committee is fully informed before conducting any hearing or making any decision.” Banks is in no position to tell the Committee how to conduct its business or, for that matter, whether the FBI or any other agency should be involved in assessing any facts. Gassley needs to put Banks on notice what he’s willing to accept.
No witness can tell a Congressional committee when or if they’re prepared to cooperate, based on their own preferences. Saying Blasey-Ford was “prepared to cooperate with the committee and with any law enforcement investigation,” presupposes that an FBI probe is needed in the situation. Blasey-Ford can set her parameters for cooperating but Grassley doesn’t have to accept them. With what’s been alleged and reported, a 36-year-old incident at a high school party hardly qualifies for an FBI investigation or any other type. Whatever took place with teenagers at a party in Maryland 36-year-ago doesn’t constitute a crime unless it was reported as a sexual assault. Whatever Blasey-Ford recalls, it doesn’t mean that anything unusual or criminal took place Surely the psych professor knows that childhood memories are subject to considerable distortion.
Even if Grassley takes Blasey-Ford at face value, it doesn’t mean he’s a chauvinist because he doesn’t accept her personal description of events. Letting her tell her story to the Committee goes beyond what is needed under the circumstances. Telling the Committee to finish an FBI investigation before her client submits herself to the indignity of testifying is preposterous. It’s Blasey-Ford that brought the charges, not Kavanaugh or anyone else. Telling the FBI what must be done before her client testifies takes audacity to new heights. “She should not be bullied into participating in a biased process,” said Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), one of the Senate’s most partisan, anti-Trump Democrats in Congress. Repeating Kamala’s talking points practically proves that Blasey-Ford has used her story to sabotage Kavanuagh’s nomination—part of a wider Democrat plot to delay the vote.
When you consider how vehemently Democrats have fought to oppose the Kavanaugh nomination, it’s difficult to separate out the politics from Blasey-Ford’s real story. If she has a story to tell, she should tell it, without whining about partisanship, without preconditions. It’s time for Grassley to put Blasey-Ford on notice that if she doesn’t attend the Judiciary Committee hearing, then the vote will go forward on the Committee’s schedule, not hers. Listening to partisan hacks in the media and in Congress agree with her stalling tactics shows really what’s happening: A Democrat attempt to scuttle Kavanaugh’s nomination. If Blasey-Ford or her attorney were really worried about traumatizing herself at a Committee hearing, she should not have filed a complaint with Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.). Time for Grassley to put Blasey-Ford and her attorney on notice about what the Committee requires.
