Christine Blasey Ford demands Kavanaugh testify first, not be allowed to rebut her testimony
Kavanaugh Nomination
Dan Calabrese , Bio and Archives--September 21, 2018
American Politics, News | Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
Yeah . . . it doesn’t work that way in America. I don’t even think it works that way in Russia.
But apparently in American politics, to the extent Democrats are allowed to make the rules, it’s now perfectly fine for those accused of something to be forced to rebut the charges before the charges are even made.
I didn’t think we needed any more evidence that this whole thing is a fraud, a scam and a shameless delay tactic, but boy, this is really something:Among the requests, the one that appeared to be non-negotiable for Ford was a Monday appearance. The earliest she could show would be Thursday, Republican and Democratic sources told NBC News. Monday is the day that Senate Republicans had originally offered for Ford to come testify and when Kavanaugh has said he is ready to testify. Ford’s attorney also relayed her concern about security and asked that the committee work with her to ensure she would be safe if she agrees to testify. Here are the other items Ford requested:
- Wants to testify second and Kavanaugh to appear first;
- Doesn’t want Kavanaugh in the room at the same time with her;
- Prefers not to be questioned by outside counsel, but rather by the senators on the committee;
- Would like the committee to subpoena Mark Judge, the other student Ford alleges to be in the room at the time of the assault, to testify;
- Says each senator should have equal time questioning (already committee practice);
- No time limit on her opening statement; and
- Will appear at a public hearing but she would like to limit the number of cameras to pool coverage.
Some of the other items are worth discussing as well, but let’s stick to the one I bolded at the top of the list. It’s true that this is not a criminal trial, but under what conceivable system based on fairness could you possibly ask the person being accused to give his testimony before the accuser comes forth to level the charge? This reeks of an accuser who is making it up as she goes along, and wants to hear Kavanaugh’s statement first so she can adjust her own testimony accordingly to cast doubt on his statement. Just think how ripe for abuse this is: If Kavanaugh testifies that he never attended a party throughout the year of 1982 and can prove it, Blasey Ford can follow him and “clarify” that the incident happened in 1983. If Kavanaugh testifies that he never was inside the house of Party A, she can follow him and claim the incident happened at the home of Party B. This is why we don’t do it the way she wants it done, and never have. The accused is simply a sitting duck if he has no opportunity to rebut the accuser’s testimony, and that’s exactly what would happen if Blasey Ford’s conditions were met. The really interesting question is whether Democrats will be so brazen as to entertain these demands as if they are legitimate. Many of them are lawyers. Surely they have to know this demand is outrageous and can’t possibly be taken seriously. Yet Blasey Ford’s lawyer went public with it, and had no fear of doing so. Are they so far gone from reality that even this is now acceptable?
View Comments
Dan Calabrese——Bio and Archives
Dan Calabrese’s column is distributed by HermanCain.com, which can be found at HermanCain
Follow all of Dan’s work, including his series of Christian spiritual warfare novels, by liking his page on Facebook.