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

U.S.

In Defense of Coleman Hughes

Picture the scene: A young man walks into a congressional hearing to offer witness testimony. His grandfather was barbarically brutalized by people who are now long dead. The nation in which he resides built its wealth of his grandfather’s brutalization. The question: Should his fellow citizens pay the young ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Making Sense of the Iran Chaos

One would prefer that correct decisions be made according to careful, deliberate plan. But a correct decision made impulsively, through a troubling process, is still nonetheless correct, and so it is with Donald Trump’s decision to refrain from military action against Iran. The proposed strike would represent a ... Read More
Education

College Leaders Should Learn from Oberlin

Thanks to their social-justice warrior mindset, the leaders of Oberlin College have caused an Ohio jury to hit it with $44 million in compensatory and punitive damages in a case where the school couldn't resist the urge to side with its “woke” students against a local business. College leaders should learn ... Read More
Film & TV

Toy Story 4: A National Anthem

The Toy Story franchise is the closest thing we have to an undisputed national anthem, a popular belief that celebrates what we think we all stand for — cooperation, ingenuity, and simple values, such as perpetual hope. This fact of our infantile, desensitized culture became apparent back in 2010 when I took a ... Read More
Elections

Joe and the Segs

Joe Biden has stepped in it, good and deep. Biden, if he has any hope of ever being elected president, will be dependent on residual goodwill among African Americans from his time as Barack Obama’s loyal and deferential vice president — so deferential, in fact, that he stood aside for Herself in 2016 even ... Read More
Politics & Policy

The Madcap Caution of Donald Trump

The worry last week was that the Trump administration was ginning up fake intelligence about Iran blowing up oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz to justify a war against Iran. Then, this week, President Donald Trump said the Iranian attacks weren’t a big deal. The episode is another indication of the ... Read More