Republicans Don’t Challenge Ford

The Republicans on the Judicial Committee continue to be intimidated by Democratic talking points like old white men can't question a woman survivor and there needs to be an FBI investigation. It’s the Democrats that seem to set the agenda, not the Majority. Republicans are too afraid of the mainstream media to the point they’ll not fight sufficiently against the Democrat's strategy. They don’t have to play dirty like the other side, but they should at least swing back.

For instance, Christine Blasey Ford wasn’t challenged during her testimony to the Judicial Committee. Rachel Mitchell, the ringer on behalf of the Republican members, asked questions as if there would be a future closing argument made for a jury deliberation; never getting to the heart of anything. Without challenging Ford, the public never learned of any inconsistencies or issues with credibility.

Establishing inconsistencies would have put cracks in her story and revealed the possibility of untruth. This is known as doubt. Since she was handled with kid gloves, her story is now said to be credible and believable. However, if some things were pointed out during her questioning that didn’t add up, then her thirty-six year old story could be correctly distrusted by reasonable people. Then possibly, Senator Jeff Flake wouldn’t have flaked out and crumbled from exposure to a little heat.

Civic Duty to Remain Anonymous

What the questioning should have revealed was that Dr. Ford really came forward to delay the nomination until after the midterms. It was indeed about politics. Instead, her story wasn’t challenged and neither were her motives.  

Raising concerns and questioning her motives would have made the hearing substantive, rather than just allowing her to speak. Any serious allegation needs to be heard, but also tested. The GOP, though, was too afraid to challenge anything.

Dr. Ford said it was her civic duty to come forward, but at the same time she insisted her information should be kept private from the rest of the committee. At least that’s how Senator Feinstein took it. Feinstein believed Ford’s letter was to be kept confidential for as long as Ford wanted to remain anonymous.  That’s why Feinstein didn’t share the letter with the rest of the committee. She held that evidence during the entire confirmation hearing right up until it looked as if Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation was inevitable. As this became apparent, somehow it was leaked to the media. Only then, they claim, did Ford agree to come forward.

If the entire Judicial Committee didn't know her story, how could Dr. Ford affect the confirmation hearing to deny Judge Kavanaugh? Denial was her goal, after all. It doesn’t make sense that she also wanted her story to be kept private.

Was she just trying to sway Senator Feinstein with her letter? Feinstein was already a definite “no”. The prosecutor didn’t ask about this supposed civic duty to come forward and then outright refusal to release the letter to the rest of the committee. This doesn’t pass the smell test because you can’t have it both ways.

The real objective here was to delay Kavanaugh’s confirmation until after the midterm elections. You can’t contact the media tip line, send your signed letter to your congresswoman, send it your senator, hire a lawyer and take a polygraph test and then not have your story told because you want anonymity.

Was Dr. Ford upset that her senator didn’t tell the rest of the committee? Did she insist on the letter’s exposure for committee consideration? After hiring a lawyer and taking the polygraph test, didn’t she have some expectation that her story would become known to every other member of the committee?

What was the point of all of that preparation if nobody else knew of her claims during the confirmation hearing? This is the time where a proper investigation could take place. She supposedly wanted her information investigated with the ultimate goal of stopping Kavanaugh. Remember, she claims it was her civic duty.

If Dr. Ford coming forward wasn’t about politics, then she would have insisted on revealing her letter to the rest of the committee during the hearing process. And if Senator Feinstein refused, she would have sent the letter herself to the Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman, Chuck Grassley and every other member. That’s what someone would do if they just wanted their account of events to be fully investigated. But, of course, that’s not what she did. She let the Democrats play their game of hiding her letter and then bomb dropping it right before the vote.

More Delay Tactics

Another attempt to delay, as opposed to just revealing truth, was her not knowing there could have been a private interview in her home or anywhere else. How could Dr. Ford not know that committee investigators were willing to come to her in California (or wherever)?

It was well publicized in the media so that the entire world knew that fact. How could she not really know? Didn’t she watch the news or talk to her lawyers? Why wasn’t she questioned about this near impossibility? Was she being truthful? Again, this is a question about credibility.

Why did her lawyers state she couldn’t fly? She should have been questioned further on this. Did the professional prosecutor ever quote any of these inconsistencies to allow the public to understand there’s a credibility issue going on here?

Mitchell just asked if she traveled here or there without pointing out the false statements made by her lawyer on her behalf. These false statements delayed the hearing, which, of course, was their goal because this was about politics.

Other Questioning

Besides clarifying that this was all about delay, they should have questioned other things. What was her political activity? Was she apart of the pro-abortion and resist movements? Why did her best friend deny remembering Brett Kavanaugh, someone with many future high profile positions?

How could a fifteen year old who was almost raped and killed not remember how she got home from the party? Didn’t the trauma continue once she left the house because she was miles away from home where she would be safe? She couldn’t drive. Did she walk or call for a ride? It’s hard to believe that she can’t remember because figuring out how to get home would be a continuation of her ordeal and, therefore, memorable.

If she did remember, then there would be another witness to interview, the driver. Or, if she walked, she would remember a landmark, a street or the path home. But all these things would help investigators narrow down the location of the party. This knowledge may not help Dr. Ford’s claims and so she says she can’t remember.

This wasn’t about revealing the truth, but all about delay until after the midterms to deny President Trump a Supreme Court appointment. Thanks to the GOP’s reluctance to challenge Dr. Ford, the bomb dropping strategy may ultimately work to derail this nominee and be used in future nominations as well.

Tags: ,
© 2016 - 2018 Donald Ax. All Rights Reserved.