Law & the Courts

If Kavanaugh’s Accuser Won’t Testify, the Senate Should Vote

Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh testifies during the third day of his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, September 6, 2018. (Alex Wroblewski/Reuters)

On Monday, Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley announced that the Senate would take the extraordinary measure of holding hearings on Christine Blasey Ford’s allegation against Brett Kavanaugh. The straightforward plan was for Ford and Kavanaugh to testify under oath. But Ford never accepted Grassley’s invitation to testify, and now, apparently, has cold feet. Both Ford’s attorney and Senate Democrats are saying that no hearing should take place until a law-enforcement investigation is completed.

Republicans should reject this transparent attempt to delay the confirmation. The invitation to Ford ought to stand for now, but if she does not agree to testify, the Senate should vote on Kavanaugh’s confirmation as expeditiously as possible.

Ford says she will appear before the committee — which has offered to hold either a private or public hearing — on the condition that “law-enforcement officials” conduct “a full investigation.” Her attorney, Debra Katz, says such an investigation is necessary to ensure that the committee assesses her allegation in a “nonpartisan” manner. This has quickly become the Democratic party line, with Senators Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein arguing that no testimony should occur until the FBI investigates — and blaming Republicans for supposedly blocking an FBI investigation.

That is laughable. As Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Flores says, and as Democrats know full well, there is no possible federal crime being alleged here. This is perhaps why Katz is keeping her demands vague, although Maryland authorities are exceedingly unlikely to open an investigation on a 36-year-old allegation for which there are scant details and less hard evidence.

Democratic politicians and some in the media have argued that just as the White House directed the FBI to investigate the Anita Hill allegation in 1991, so should Donald Trump direct the FBI to investigate Ford’s account. But the FBI has already considered Ford’s charge, after Feinstein forwarded it to the bureau. It declined to open criminal proceedings and merely added the information to Kavanaugh’s background-check file. What’s more, both Hill and Clarence Thomas were federal employees when the alleged sexual harassment was supposed to have transpired, giving the FBI a reason to look into the incident that it obviously does not have for a decades-old possible violation of Maryland state law.

It is worth remembering that Ford brought her allegation to the attention of the Washington Post and Feinstein in July, and retained a lawyer weeks ago. While neither the Post, nor Feinstein, nor Katz has uncovered serious corroborating evidence, the discrepancies in her account of the assault continue to add up: The latest is that Patrick Smyth, who Ford says was at the party in question, denies ever being there.

In any case, a hearing before the Judiciary Committee would be an appropriate way for the Senate to gauge the accuracy of this accusation. Just as evidence supporting Kavanaugh’s denial has been brought to the committee via letters from Smyth and Mark Judge, Ford could marshal evidence in her own behalf in testimony. Instead, her attorney and the Democrats appear to have coalesced around the unprecedented demand of an unbounded investigation by an agency that has no business investigating allegations like this one. If Ford continues to decline to testify, then Republicans should move ahead with the confirmation vote. An unanswered invitation is no reason to bring the nation’s affairs to a halt.

 

The Editors comprise the senior editorial staff of the National Review magazine and website.

Most Popular

White House

On the Bidens, Schiff Opened the Door

You opened the door. Trial lawyers live in fear of that phrase. When a trial starts, both sides know what the allegations are. Both have had enough discovery to know what the adversary will try to prove. Just as significantly, both know what their own vulnerabilities are. A litigator spends his pretrial ... Read More
White House

On the Bidens, Schiff Opened the Door

You opened the door. Trial lawyers live in fear of that phrase. When a trial starts, both sides know what the allegations are. Both have had enough discovery to know what the adversary will try to prove. Just as significantly, both know what their own vulnerabilities are. A litigator spends his pretrial ... Read More
Law & the Courts

Clarence Thomas Speaks

Those who know Justice Clarence Thomas say that any perception of him as dour or phlegmatic couldn't be more off-base. He's a charming, gracious, jovial man, full of bonhomie and easy with a laugh, or so I'm told by people who know him well. On summer breaks he likes to roam around the country in an RV and stay ... Read More
Law & the Courts

Clarence Thomas Speaks

Those who know Justice Clarence Thomas say that any perception of him as dour or phlegmatic couldn't be more off-base. He's a charming, gracious, jovial man, full of bonhomie and easy with a laugh, or so I'm told by people who know him well. On summer breaks he likes to roam around the country in an RV and stay ... Read More
World

Alarmists Were Wrong about the Soleimani Strike

Two weeks ago, the United States seemed on the brink of starting another war in the Middle East after a drone strike killed Iran’s most notorious spymaster, Qasem Soleimani, as he departed an international airport in Baghdad. The shadowy general, in charge of the Iranian equivalent of the CIA, was one of the ... Read More
World

Alarmists Were Wrong about the Soleimani Strike

Two weeks ago, the United States seemed on the brink of starting another war in the Middle East after a drone strike killed Iran’s most notorious spymaster, Qasem Soleimani, as he departed an international airport in Baghdad. The shadowy general, in charge of the Iranian equivalent of the CIA, was one of the ... Read More
U.S.

Nadler’s Folly

Jerry Nadler must have missed the day in law school where they teach you about persuasion. The House Democrat made a critical error early in the trial of President Trump. He didn’t just say that Republican senators, who voted to begin the proceedings without calling witnesses, were part of a cover-up. He said ... Read More
U.S.

Nadler’s Folly

Jerry Nadler must have missed the day in law school where they teach you about persuasion. The House Democrat made a critical error early in the trial of President Trump. He didn’t just say that Republican senators, who voted to begin the proceedings without calling witnesses, were part of a cover-up. He said ... Read More