The Democrats and their pro-abortion auxiliary got what they wanted: Another chance to smear a Supreme Court nominee who might vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.
On Monday, Judge Brett Kavanaugh will testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee about a dubious attempted rape allegation from left-wing psychologist Christine Blasey Ford.
A testimony from Ford has not yet been confirmed. According to the New York Times,
The woman who has accused President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee of sexual assault has so far failed to respond to requests from the Senate Judiciary Committee to testify at an extraordinary public hearing on Monday, raising doubts about whether she plans to attend — and whether the session would go on without her.
Senator Charles E. Grassley, the Iowa Republican who leads the Senate Judiciary Committee, told the radio host Hugh Hewitt on Tuesday that he had sent several requests to lawyers for the accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, to testify along with Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh. But he said he had not gotten a reply, “so it kind of raises the question: Do they want to come to the public hearing or not?”
The problem for Kavanaugh? Ford’s claim is so old its veracity is impossible to determine.
“The hearing sets up a public spectacle that Senate Republican leaders had been hoping to avoid 50 days before midterm elections in which their majority in both chambers is at risk and female voters are energized about casting ballots,” The Washington Post reported: “Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) said that his staff had contacted Ford to hear her account and held a follow-up call with Kavanaugh on Monday afternoon but that Democrats had declined to participate.”
Democrats might have refused to participate in the call, but they didn’t need to participate. They did what they needed to do. Senator Susan Collins, the pro-abortion Republican from Maine, is a crucial vote for Kavanaugh, and it appeared, until the last-minute allegations surfaced, she would vote for the nominee. But now Ford, a left-wing activist like her attorney, has given Collins a good reason to vote “no” without incurring the wrath of her colleagues.
Said Collins, “Obviously, if Judge Kavanaugh has lied about what happened, that would be disqualifying. For my part, I believe that it’s very important that both Professor Ford and Judge Kavanaugh testify under oath about these allegations. I need to see them and listen to their answers to the questions in order to make an assessment.”
Senator Jeff Flake, a virtue-signaling liberal Republican who opposes the president and is not running for reelection, sounded like he might vote no. Of course, he’s not “presupposing” anything, but “if you believe the charges are true, you vote no.” Flake has nothing to lose by helping sink Kavanaugh.
Christine Blasey Ford
Aside from her inability to remember key details about the night she claims a “stumbling drunk” Kavanaugh attempted to rape her and might even “inadvertently” kill her, a number of facts about Ford stand out.
First, like her Soros-backed attorney, Ford is a semi-professional left-wing activist. A psychology professor at Palo Alto University, Ford signed a letter from Physicians for Human Rights, bellyaching about the Trump administration’s policy to “separate” children from families at the border, a policy the left repeatedly lied about. PHR said Trump must “immediately end forced separation of families at the border” because it’s bad for the families.
Unsurprisingly, one of PHR’s big backers is left-wing financier George Soros, who received PHR's Life Achievement Award in 2015.
Ford also participated in the March For Science, another spasm of Trump Derangment. It’s goal was to block the administration’s putative cuts to funding for science research. The newspaper Palo Alto quoted Ford, who goes by Christine Blasey professionally:
“It’s a science party!” said biostatistician Christine Blasey, of Palo Alto, who will wear an elaborately knitted cap of the human brain — yarn turned into a supersized cerebral cortex — inspired by the “pussy hats” donned during the Women’s Marches. “Getting introverted people to the march — that’s huge,” [Blasey] laughed.
Of course, as Science Magazine reported, the cuts never materialized, and instead science research received its largest boost in a decade.
Beyond that, Ford’s professional work on some occasion has focused on victimology. A paper to which she contributed published in Behavior Therapy, entitled “Anxiety and Related Disorders and Concealment in Sexual Minority Young Adults,” purported to show that “sexual minorities face greater exposure to discrimination and rejection than heterosexuals.” Thus, “sexual minorities may engage in sexual orientation concealment in order to avoid danger,” and further, “this social stigma and minority stress places sexual minorities at risk for anxiety and related disorders.”
We also know that Ford divulged the attempted rape for the first time 2012, when Mitt Romney was a presidential candidate who, if victorious, could reshape the high court.
As Ford’s husband told the Post, “recalled that his wife used Kavanaugh’s last name and voiced concern that Kavanaugh — then a federal judge — might one day be nominated to the Supreme Court.”
Why not bring it up then? Because Romney lost.
And if Christine Ford was so worried about Kavanaugh’s rise to power, why not try to shoot him down in 2006 during confirmation hearings for the post he holds now on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, a feeder for the highest legal forum in the land.
Some believe Ford is exacting revenge on Kavanaugh because his mother, Judge Martha G. Kavanaugh, presided over proceedings involving Ford’s parents. Kavanaugh’s defenders incorrectly concluded the matter was a foreclosure on the parents’ home. Instead, Law and Crime reported, the matter was settled out of court.
Whatever the case concerned, Ford might still hold a grudge if she perceives that Kavanaugh’s mother did her parents wrong.
Media Games and Memory Lapses
After it became clear that Kavanaugh would almost certainly land on the Court, Senator Dianne Feinstein sent Ford’s letter detailing the rape allegations to the FBI, but refused to release Ford’s name. The Washington Post knew who Ford was and what she claimed. Ford contacted the paper in early July.
Ronan Farrow obliged the Democrats with a vague, short story in the New Yorker that Kavanaugh denied. Then, on Sunday, the Post detonated its bomb. The newspaper identified Ford and published a detailed account of her claim, including suspicious memory lapses.
Ford, 15 at at the time, claims a drunken Kavanaugh tried to rape her, holding his hand over her mouth. She escaped when Mark Judge, Kavanaugh’s friend who was in the room, jumped on the two, enabling Ford to escape. Two of Ford’s dubious claims are not remembering how she got home, and, preposterously, that she “thought he might inadvertently kill me.” But Kavanaugh, she also claimed, was “stumbling drunk.”
Judge, who writes for the Daily Caller, called Ford’s claims “absolutely nuts.”
On Monday, the Post published a piece to explain Ford’s memory lapses:
According to psychologist Anne Meltzer, it may be challenging to recall peripheral details of an assault years later — such as who spread word of the party, who was the designated driver — but that should not detract from a victim’s veracity “if she can clearly and consistently articulate central details of what happened, such as the who, what and where,” she told The Post.
Meltzer also told the Post that waiting 40 years to report an attempted rape “is not alarming,” calling the supposed attack “child sexual abuse,” despite Ford’s age at the time.
The Post quoted another source who said the account is believable because Ford admitted that a witness, Mark Judge, was there. Moreover, the witness was an alcoholic subject to blackouts.
Thus did the Post set up the required excuses for any fence-sitting Republican or Democrat to vote “no” on Kavanaugh even though Ford cannot prove her last-minute claims.
The Democrats and their media allies played it perfectly, smearing a good man in the service of their cause: the “right” to murder the unborn.
Photo: AP Images