Thomas: Democrats' delay tactics
You have to hand it to the Democrats. They know how to use the media and the political process to gum up the works when it is to their advantage. Following the last-minute surfacing of Christine Blasey Ford, who claims she was sexually assaulted ...
You have to hand it to the Democrats. They know how to use the media and the political process to gum up the works when it is to their advantage.
Following the last-minute surfacing of Christine Blasey Ford, who claims she was sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh at a party in Maryland when they were both in high school, a charge he has vehemently denied, Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) invited Ford and Kavanaugh to testify under oath next Monday.
That's part of the plan by the slowdown crowd, whose objective is not to learn the truth, but to deny Kavanaugh's confirmation because they don't like his views of the Constitution and the law. Now Ford says she won't testify until the FBI investigates Kavanaugh first. The New York Times writes, that Ford believes "...an investigation should be 'the first step' before she is put 'on national television to relive this traumatic and harrowing incident.'"
Mark Judge, Kavanaugh's classmate at the time of the alleged assault, told The New York Times, "I never saw anything like what was described."
To his credit, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who recently said he wouldn't be comfortable voting to confirm Kavanaugh until Ford is heard, tweeted, "...Republicans extended a hand (to Ford) in good faith. If we don't hear from both sides on Monday, let's vote."
Chairman Grassley said in response to a letter sent to him by Ford's attorney Debra Katz, "Dr. Ford's testimony would reflect her personal knowledge and memory of events. Nothing the FBI or any other investigator does would have any bearing on what Dr. Ford tells the committee, so there is no reason for any other delay."
Even ranking member Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), who held Ford's letter for several weeks citing concerns for Ford's confidentiality before referring the letter to the FBI, says that while she believes Ford is "credible" (how would she know?) she adds, "[Ford] is a woman that has been, I think, profoundly impacted. On this . . . I can't say that everything is truthful. I don't know."
The San Francisco Chronicle's editorial board took exception with the timing. It writes, "Sen. Dianne Feinstein's treatment of a more than three-decade-old sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was unfair all around. It was unfair to Kavanaugh, unfair to his accuser and unfair to Feinstein's colleagues-Democrats and Republicans alike-on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Feinstein, a California Democrat, took the worst possible course by waiting until almost a week after Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing was completed to ominously announce that she had turned over 'information from an individual' about Kavanaugh to the FBI, and adding that she would be honoring the woman's 'strongly requested' confidentiality."
Is this the way the Senate wants to proceed with this and future nominees to the court? Can a single letter made public in a desperate attempt to derail the nomination of a man of the highest integrity who has been endorsed by scores of women that have worked for and with him and say he has always behaved properly stop a nomination process cold?
If the FBI wants to investigate things that need investigation there is much behavior from the Bill and Hillary Clinton era that would keep agents busy and produce results of interest to the public and law enforcement, including alleged Chinese hacking of Hillary's emails while she was secretary of state, Uranium One scandal, foreign gifts to the Clinton Foundation and so much more.
If Ford doesn't show on Monday, she will lose any credibility she might have and the committee and full Senate should follow Sen. Corker's advice and proceed to a vote.
Cal Thomas can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org .