Lindsey Graham, who did not call for a delay, released a statement on Wednesday accusing Democrats and Ford’s team of dragging their feet: “Requiring an F.B.I. investigation of a 36-year-old allegation . . . before Professor Ford will appear before the Judiciary Committee is not about finding the truth, but delaying the process until after the midterm elections,” he said. “It is imperative the Judiciary Committee move forward on the Kavanaugh nomination and a committee vote be taken as soon as possible.”
Good faith, it seems, goes only so far. Already, as The New York Times reported Tuesday, Republicans have landed on an argument to discredit Ford: that she was indeed assaulted at a party Kavanaugh attended, but was “mistaken,” as Senator Orrin Hatch put it, as to her assailant’s identity.
There's no "imperative" to quick and dirty when thorough and level-headed makes all the sense needed. Lindsey Graham is dissembling, and we can guess the reason.
Same outlet, different item:
According to sources, several factors are at play. White House advisers are worried that more damaging information about Kavanaugh could come out. Two sources told me the White House has heard rumors that Ford’s account will be verified by women who say she told it to them contemporaneously.
Partisan committee staff cannot credibly say they'll investigate; the professional investigators in DC are in the FBI. We all know that.
If there are contemporaneous corroborating witnesses, common sense says that for a fair hearing they need to be heard. Yet before rushing to judgment, reports conflict, WaPo writing:
Ford said she has not spoken with Kavanaugh since that night. And she told no one at the time what had happened to her. She was terrified, she said, that she would be in trouble if her parents realized she had been at a party where teenagers were drinking, and she worried they might figure it out even if she did not tell them.
However you parse things if Senators are to credibly judge a situation, shouldn't they know facts? FBI inquiry could pin detail of corroborating testimony, if any, in a credible and definitive way. If tangible evidence is lacking, contemporaneous corroborative testimony is of cardinal importance. This is not Alice facing the Red Queen's meanderings in Wonderland. These are lawyers. Trained on norms of evidence. It's fundamental.
Here is food for thought, about Judge, the second man said to be in the room watching and laughing as Kavanaugh was said to be the one assaulting Ford:
Both men have denied the accusation, which Christine Blasey Ford went public with this week in The Washington Post. A lawyer for Judge said in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee that he has “no memory of this alleged incident.” Judge previously told the New York Times that such behavior would be wildly out of character for the Catholic-raised-and-educated boys who went to Georgetown Prep in the early ’80s.
What Judge has written in his career as a journalist and author is another matter.
In two memoirs, Judge depicted his high school as a nest of debauchery where students attended “masturbation class,” “lusted after girls” from nearby Catholic schools and drank themselves into stupors at parties.
So, in authoring generic background of interest this Judge, via his lawyer, issues no categorial "It did not happen," instead, "no memory of this alleged incident." Uncertainty of memory differs from something more emphatic and definite. He would make an interesting witness.
Here is a good one:
Kavanaugh on Monday issued a fresh denial of the allegations, which have roiled his confirmation process.
“I have never done anything like what the accuser describes — to her or to anyone,” he said in a statement. “Because this never happened, I had no idea who was making this accusation until she identified herself yesterday.”
Yet his denials only prompted further questions. Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), a member of the Judiciary Committee, said that Kavanaugh had told him that he was not present at the party in question — which prompted some to wonder how Kavanaugh could make such a claim given that Ford had never specified the exact date or location of the gathering.
But, you know, "that party" "never there" "nope" "never ever." Some 'splaining is due from the Judge, and sidekick Judge.
This needs more fleshing out:
But while Ford’s lawyers await Grassley’s official response to their request for an F.B.I. probe, Republicans’ maneuvering is increasingly transparent. “[If] ‘Grassley’s staff offered Dr. Ford multiple dates’ what were the other dates,” tweeted Josh Barro. “And if she hadn’t responded yet, how did they settle on Monday?”
BOTTOM LINE: It sounds like skeletons might be rattling away, so let the FBI open the door and look in the closet. It should not take long.
UPDATE: BIGGER BOTTOM LINE: The Republicans have the votes they need. Pence likely in his inner persona is loving the idea of being needed and able to cast a deciding vote as with DeVos, but being bound by appearances being a big part of who Pence is, he'd shy away to continue being Uriah Heap. Like Wardlow. Twin sons of different mothers. In that sense Wardlow has more Pence in him than Cruz. At least as to appearances.