Senate Republicans Are Trying to Intimidate Christine Blasey Ford Into Silence
Chuck Grassley and his colleagues are convening a sham hearing because they want political cover more than they want the truth.
By Jay Willis
Photo Illustration by Alicia Tatone
There are two possible reasons that Senate Judiciary Committee chair Chuck Grassley might want to hold additional hearings next week on Christine Blasey Ford's sexual assault allegations against Brett Kavanaugh. The first would be to make a good-faith effort to find out if the allegations are true: if the incident occurred, and if it happened as Ford describes it, all in the name of ensuring that the American people—and the senators who will soon vote on the prospect of elevating Kavanaugh to the pinnacle of his profession for the rest of his life—can first better understand whether this Supreme Court nominee tried to rape a woman in high school, and is now lying about it.
The second is to provide his Republican colleagues—people who want good conservatives on the Supreme Court, but who are a little leery of voting to confirm a maybe-predator without knowing more first—with just enough political cover to announce that they found Kavanaugh to be honest and forthcoming, and that his denials were credible and her assertions were not, and that they are comfortable proceeding to a vote. The agenda should include enough process to allow Jeff Flake and Bob Corker to tell their constituents that they care deeply about sexual misconduct, and would never support someone who committed it. The agenda should not, however, include enough substance for them (or anyone else) to determine if sexual misconduct, in this case, actually took place.
Guess which strategy Chuck Grassley is embracing?
In other words, Grassley apparently has no interest in hearing from, say, the therapist with whom Ford discussed the assault back in 2012, long before Kavanaugh was a household name. He sees no value in the testimony of the two other individuals Ford named as being present at the party. And he certainly doesn't want to hear from Mark Judge, Kavanaugh's high school buddy, whom Ford says was in the room when the assault occurred. No experts, no character witnesses, no one.
Instead, what Grassley and company want is the word of one the most powerful men in Washington—a man who has the backing of a political party that desperately needs him to succeed—pitted against the word of a California college professor as she recounts a painful experience in graphic detail, and on national television, and before 11 men who want her to fail. Their ideal result is a messy, inconclusive, he-said-she-said circus, one that enables senators to shrug their shoulders and decide that the tie goes to the nominee, probably while offering him their profuse, sheepish thanks for his patience throughout the process.
Trump Is Running the Government Like a Cheap Reality TV Show
You could see the contours of this plan on Tuesday morning, when Grassley revealed that Ford and her attorney, Debra Katz, have not yet confirmed her attendance at his hearing. This, says Grassley, "kind of raises the question: Do they want to come to the public hearing or not?" An anonymous "Kavanaugh ally" told Politico that Katz has "tried to impose some serious conditions" on Ford's testimony. The report does not elaborate on what those "conditions" might be, but my guess is that Ford has received only a take-it-or-leave-it offer: to testify before Committee on the Committee's terms, and on the Committee's timeline, and alongside the Committee's hand-picked witnesses. This is a flagrant attempt to intimidate Ford into remaining silent.
If she shows next week, Senate Republicans are happy to take their chances; they will have already rigged the game against her, and are well-practiced in the art of attacking courageous women who speak out against the vile conduct of high-profile judicial nominees. And if she doesn't? Well, that's her choice, and perhaps it suggests that Christine Blasey Ford was never all that serious about her claims in the first place. "She can come if she likes, but if she doesn't want to, she doesn't have to," said Lindsey Graham last night. "We will vote on Wednesday."
One might think that all politicians, regardless of their partisan inclinations, would care about the distinct possibility that a prospective Supreme Court justice is a liar, an abuser, or both. But this Republican Party determined long ago that aligning itself with liars and abusers is an acceptable strategy, as long as it's in the name of accumulating political power.
The Most Chaotic Congress in Memory Is Pure Style Chaos, Too
By Eileen Cartter
First Day on the Job, and John Fetterman's Got Another Suit
The Best Cock Rings for Harder Hard-Ons
By Kate Sloan
The Best Butt Plugs Will Open Things Up for More Fun