If you haven't already, feel free to read my fairly extended thoughts on the allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. There is essentially no way of discerning whether the accuser is telling the truth, is lying, or is advancing a claim based on hazy memories that have potentially been altered or augmented over the course of three-plus decades. But here we are. The accusation is now public, and the dilemma has now become determining the most reasonable, fair, and useful course of action as we forge forward. Christine Blasey Ford -- after initially insisting that she wanted to remain anonymous -- now says she's willing to testify before the committee and furnish members with (legally inadmissible) lie detector test results. The one alleged eyewitness, a high school friend of Kavanaugh's named Mark Judge, has denied Ford's claims completely, reiterating his denial today before (understandably) declining to comment further. And Judge Kavanaugh released a strong statement of innocence earlier, stating that he will return to address the Senate Judiciary Committee, if need be: New Kavanaugh statement: “This is a completely false allegation...Because this never happened, I had no idea who was making this accusation until she identified herself yesterday...I am willing to talk to the Senate Judiciary Committee in any way the Committee deems appropriate.” — Sarah Westwood (@sarahcwestwood) September 17, 2018 Some Republican Senators firmly believe that rewarding this eleventh-hour allegation in any way, shape or form would be a mistake. They see it as nothing more than an unverifiable and unfalsifiable dirty trick, and therefore a failure to nip it in the bud -- especially with so little evidence -- would incentivize more weaponized allegations against high-profile nominees in the future. That's a reasonable fear. Other Republican Senators want to afford the accuser an opportunity to state her case. Nevertheless, even the most moderate GOP member sounds rightfully suspicious of Democrats' motives in all of this, and especially Sen. Feinstein's decisions that affected the timeline of events. Feinstein is now saying that the unsubstantiated allegations from 1982 "bear heavily" on Kavanaugh's character (with some liberals actively pushing back against that notion), which is an interesting change of heart if this is accurate: "A source familiar with the committee’s activities said that Feinstein’s staff initially conveyed to other Democratic members’ offices that the incident was too distant in the past to merit public discussion" https://t.co/wIdRMT4f0l — John McCormack (@McCormackJohn) September 16, 2018 She didn't act on this information for nearly two months, with her staff reportedly downplaying the allegations as unworthy of public scrutiny to colleagues...until, that is, the rumors spilled into the public eye (quite possibly with her team's assistance) within one week of a key vote -- at which point, she decided it is all very serious and certainly merits public discussion. The GOP is absolutely right to be highly skeptical of how this is going down. They are also right to recognize the difficulty and sensitivity of this situation, which presents a no-win political conundrum: They could move forward with Thursday's vote as scheduled, and risk looking like they're not remotely interested in weighing a serious charge (and possibly even lose the vote). Or they could postpone the vote and hold a hearing, which very well could whip up more frenzied passions and drama over competing claims, without actually resolving anything. Again, based on the facts we have, I don't think this situation is 'resolvable.' It's a 36-year-old he said/he said/she said with zero contemporaneous evidence. To those Republicans wishing to give Ford her proverbial day in political court, out of respect and thoroughness, but who are also disinclined to green-light an event with a high likelihood of turning into an unseemly spectacle (recall the conduct of Democrats and protesters at the confirmation hearings), may I suggest a possible least-bad option: Conduct an expedited, under-oath hearing on this matter in closed session. This setting would permit the accuser and the accused to state their respective cases on the record, in sworn testimony. Senators would have the opportunity to question both individuals, as well as other potentially-relevant witnesses (such as Mr. Judge and various others vouching for character and credibility) without indulging the temptation to play to the bright lights and feverish coverage of a live open hearing. Alternatively, or in addition, this idea strikes me as a good one. Let a professional, respected, non-grandstanding attorney ask the questions. This is a compromise solution that would permit members of the committee to probe this accusation in closed-door hearings, then make the resulting transcripts available to other Senators wishing to consider their contents, before allowing both the panel and full Senate to exercise its 'advice and consent' duty on the nomination. This process would necessarily push back the committee vote a bit, but that trade-off seems reasonable, so long as the postponement is relatively short, discrete, and not open-ended. This cannot be abused as an indefinite delay tactic, especially as Democrats have every incentive to chew up the calendar ahead of the midterms, hopeful that they'll control the committee in a number of months. As we await decisions about next steps, I'll reiterate that I'm gravely concerned about the effect on our already-damaged politics if a single, decades-old, unverifiable accusation of questionable credibility is deemed to be sufficient grounds to derail a major nominee. On that score, read David French's excellent piece about assessing claims like this: Ford's allegations are serious, and if true disqualifying. Here's the key question. Based on the available evidence, is it more likely than not that her claims are true? My answer here:https://t.co/vajFfu7YET — David French (@DavidAFrench) September 17, 2018 There's a dispute over whether the allegations are serious enough to be disqualifying if true (the woman's lawyer says even she has not taken that position), but now that Kavanaugh has denied it, outright and repeatedly, the alleged act plus the lie would certainly be disqualifying. If he did it, and if he's lying. And there's really no way of knowing either way. That's why French's metric for assessing unknowable scenarios seems sensible: Are there contemporaneous accounts backing up a new claim? In this case, the answer is no. Are there multiple alleged victims with similar stories? In this case, as far as we've seen, the answer is no. (A liberal WaPo columnist has made roughly the same point about patterns of behavior). If more women step forward with credible claims that mirror Ford's, Kavanaugh may be cooked. Republicans would then find themselves in another bind, debating whether they could install another nominee with the clock ticking toward November and beyond. But that's a total, and currently unfair, hypothetical. We cannot cut Brett Kavanaugh loose based on what we have, and don't have, in this case. I'll leave you with this: I followed evidence on Roy Moore & believed his accusers. Now my reasoned, skeptical assessments of an accuser’s story are provoking indignant screams of misogyny. Unless you join their stampede precisely how they want you to, you’re a monster. Exhausting & alienating. ?? — Guy Benson (@guypbenson) September 17, 2018 I will not be bullied into joining a mob based on a single, thin allegation. Neither should Republican Senators. By the way, are Democrats already not cooperating?<doc-sep>UNITED STATES - MAY 09: Brett Kavanaugh is sowrn-in at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on his nomination to be U. S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit. (Photo By Chris Maddaloni/Roll Call/Getty Images) WASHINGTON, DC - JULY 09: U.S. Circuit Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh looks on as U.S. President Donald Trump introduces him as his nominee to the United States Supreme Court during an event in the East Room of the White House July 9, 2018 in Washington, DC. Pending confirmation by the U.S. Senate, Judge Kavanaugh would succeed Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, 81, who is retiring after 30 years of service on the high court. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images) Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., administers the Constitutional Oath to Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh in the Justices' Conference Room, Supreme Court Building. Mrs. Ashley Kavanaugh holds the Bible. Credit: Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States. WASHINGTON, DC - SEPTEMBER 04: Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee during his Supreme Court confirmation hearing in the Hart Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill September 4, 2018 in Washington, DC. Kavanaugh was nominated by President Donald Trump to fill the vacancy on the court left by retiring Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images) (CNN) — Three Republican senators have weighed in on postponing a vote on Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination until they hear more from the woman accusing Kavanaugh of sexual assault. Sens. Jeff Flake and Bob Corker both say the Senate Judiciary Committee should not vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination until they talk to his accuser, and Sen. Lisa Murkowski said the committee might have to consider delaying the vote, according to reporting by CNN and other news organizations. When asked if the committee should consider delaying the vote this week, Murkowski told CNN, “Well, I think that might be something they might have to consider, at least having that discussion. This is not something that came up during the hearings. The hearings are now over, and if there is real substance to this, it demands a response. That may be something the committee needs to look into.” Senate Republicans hold a 51-49 majority and cannot afford two or more Republicans voting against Kavanaugh’s nomination unless they pick up votes from Democrats. Alaska’s Murkowski and Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins are two key GOP swing votes. Collins told CNN on Sunday that she was “very surprised” by the now-public allegations, but did not know enough to make a judgment. She said she raised the allegations during a phone call with Kavanaugh on Friday before the accuser went public over the weekend. Asked if she wanted the Senate Judiciary Committee to delay its planned vote this week on Kavanaugh’s nomination, Collins was noncommittal. “I’m going to be talking with my colleagues, but I really don’t have anything to add at this point,” Collins said Sunday. Flake sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee and was the first Republican to join Democrats in urging a delay in the committee vote, planned for Thursday, until the panel has heard from Christine Blasey Ford, who alleges Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her more than three decades ago, The Washington Post and Politico reported Sunday. “I’ve made it clear that I’m not comfortable moving ahead with the vote on Thursday if we have not heard her side of the story or explored this further,” the Arizona senator told the Post. Flake did not say to the Post what form the communication with Ford should take or how he plans to vote. He told Politico, “We need to hear from her. And I don’t think I’m alone in this.” In a statement on Friday, Kavanaugh denied the reported allegations that while at a party during his time in high school, he pushed a woman, who then had not been publicly identified, into a room, locked the door to the room along with another male and tried to take off the woman’s clothes. “I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time,” his statement said. In an interview with The New York Times on Sunday, Collins questioned how her Democratic colleagues handled the matter. “What is puzzling to me is the Democrats, by not bringing this out earlier, after having had this information for more than six weeks, have managed to cast a cloud of doubt on both the professor and the judge,” she said. “If they believed Professor Ford, why didn’t they surface this information earlier so that he could be questioned about it? And if they didn’t believe her and chose to withhold the information, why did they decide at the 11th hour to release it? It is really not fair to either of them the way it is was handled.” Corker also believes Kavanaugh’s accuser should be heard out before the Judiciary Committee votes on his nomination, the Tennessee senator’s spokesperson, Micah Johnson, said in a statement to CNN. Corker, however, does not sit on the panel. Ford came forward publicly Sunday, detailing her allegations about the Supreme Court nominee in an interview with the Post. As her private outreach to California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein became public over the past week, she decided to go ahead and speak out herself, Sunday’s report said. In the Post’s report on Sunday, Ford alleged Kavanaugh “pinned her to a bed on her back and groped her over her clothes, grinding his body against hers” while trying to remove her clothes. “When she tried to scream, she said, he put his hand over her mouth,” but ultimately she was able to run from the room, the report added. CNN’s Manu Raju, Ted Barrett, Greg Clary and Eli Watkins contributed to this report.<doc-sep>
WASHINGTON – A growing number of Republican senators are calling for a delay on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation vote until they have time to hear from a woman accusing the judge of sexual misconduct when they were both in high school. Christine Blasey Ford, 51, came forward publicly Sunday with a detailed account in The Washington Post of an incident that took place at a party when she was 15 and Kavanaugh was 17. Ford claims Kavanaugh held her down and tried to remove her clothes while covering her mouth with his hand and leading her to believe that he could "inadvertently kill me." USA TODAY does not normally name accusers of sexual assault, but in this case, Ford forward publicly to detail her allegations. The story of the alleged assault first appeared in a New Yorker magazine article last week, but Ford was not identified. Since the story surfaced, Kavanaugh has denied the allegations. In light of the allegations, a number of senators have said they didn't want to move forward with advancing Kavanaugh's nomination until they heard from Ford. Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said in a statement Monday that anyone "who comes forward as Dr. Ford has deserves to be heard." Still, his statement did not address whether the committee would go forward with the nomination on Thursday as planned. Grassley said the "standard procedure" for handling late updates to "any nominee's background investigation file is to conduct separate follow-up calls with relevant parties" Grassley he was trying to arrange calls with Kavanaugh and Ford. But he said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., refused to help him set the calls up. "Unfortunately, committee Republicans have only known this person's identity from news reports for less than 24 hours and known about her allegations for less than a week," Grassley said. "Senator Feinstein, on the other hand, has had this information for many weeks and deprived her colleagues of the information necessary to do our jobs." He added that it was "deeply disturbing" that the allegations were "leaked in a way that seemed to preclude Dr. Ford’s confidentiality" and lamented that Ford and Katz did not directly approach him with the allegations earlier. During an interview with NBC's "Today" show, Ford's lawyer, Debra Katz, said her client was willing to testify. For his part, Kavanaugh released a statement Monday saying that he would be willing to talk to the committee "in any way the Committee deems appropriate to refute this false allegation, from 36 years ago, and defend my integrity." Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., one of the committee members, said he does not think the committee should advance Kavanaugh's nomination until Ford is heard out. "If they push forward without any attempt with hearing what she's had to say, I'm not comfortable voting yes," Flake told Politico on Sunday. "We need to hear from her. And I don't think I'm alone in this." Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., who, like Flake, is retiring, told Politico that it "would be best for all involved, including the nominee" if the committee delayed a vote. "If she does want to be heard, she should do so promptly." When asked if she believed if the vote should be delayed, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, told CNN on Sunday, "I think that might be something they might have to consider." "This is not something that came up during the hearings," she said, according to CNN. "The hearings are now over, and if there is real substance to this, it demands a response." Although Murkowski and Corker are not on the Judiciary Committee, Republicans only have a narrow, 51-seat majority in the Senate and every vote will be crucial to Kavanaugh's final confirmation. The Senate could bypass the committee and bring Kavanaugh's nomination directly to the floor for a vote. Sen. Susan Collins, a moderate Maine Republican whom groups opposed to Kavanaugh have desperately tried to sway, said in a tweet Monday that both Ford and Kavanaugh "should both testify under oath before the Judiciary Committee. " On Monday, Collins told CNN she was "very surprised" by the allegation against Kavanaugh. She said she spoke to Kavanaugh about the allegations in a phone call Friday and that the judge was "very emphatic in his denial."