This article is more than
6 year old
|
At Thursday’s hearing, Dr. Ford delivered a tearful opening statement before answering senators' questions. The GOP’s all-male contingent on the committee hired Rachel Mitchell, an Arizona prosecutor, to ask their questions. Here are some of the highlights of what Dr. Ford said.
In July, Mr. Trump picked a conservative appeals-court judge to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court left by Justice Anthony Kennedy. Judge Kavanaugh, 53, was a former player in Kenneth Starr’s investigation into president Bill Clinton in the 1990s, and handled judicial appointments in the George W. Bush White House. Judge Kavanaugh went through confirmation hearings in August and September, and despite bitter procedural fights he seemed on track to be confirmed. But then the allegations by Dr. Ford emerged, leading senators to invite him back for new hearings.
On Thursday, as he prepared to read his testimony, he said he “wrote it himself. This is my statement.” Here are some highlights from his written and verbal testimonies:
The battle over timing and terms
As soon as she told Ms. Feinstein about her allegations, Dr. Ford faced a complicated and dangerous decision about whether to testify. Her options: testify and risk an all-out attack on her credibility and personal life, or stay anonymous and allow Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation to go unchallenged. Eventually, she decided. “My civic responsibility is outweighing my anguish and terror about retaliation,” she told The Washington Post.
But to make sure the testimony would be on her terms, she pressed the Senate committee for certain conditions. She wanted the FBI to open an investigation before she would appear; the Republicans refused. She wanted more time before testifying, to ensure terms she felt were fair and safe; the committee insisted on her appearing within days, initially setting Sept. 24 as her only take-it-or-leave-it chance to speak. Her lawyers asked the committee to subpoena a man she says was the other person in the room when the 1982 attack occurred; the committee did not do this. It wasn’t until Sept. 23 that Dr. Ford and the senators reached an agreement and scheduled the hearing for four days later.
Deborah Ramirez: On Sept. 23, The New Yorker magazine broke the news of a second accuser of Judge Kavanaugh. Deborah Ramirez, a classmate of Judge Kavanaugh’s at Yale University, alleged that in the 1983-84 school year, he exposed himself to her at a party, thrust his penis at her face and made her touch it as she pushed him away. Several Democratic senators had been made aware of her story and were investigating it, the magazine reported. Judge Kavanaugh denied the accusations, saying in a White House-supplied statement that it was "a smear, plain and simple.”
Julie Swetnick: Celebrity lawyer Michael Avenatti identified another woman, Julie Swetnick, on Sept. 26 making allegations against Judge Kavanaugh. In a signed statement released by Mr. Avenatti, Ms. Swetnick said the future judge and his high-school friend, Mark Judge, would sometimes spike punch at house parties to “cause girls to become inebriated and disoriented” so they could be “gang raped” in another room. She said this happened to her in 1982, and that both boys were present when it happened. Judge Kavanaugh denied the allegation: “This is ridiculous and from the Twilight Zone," he said in a statement. "I don’t know who this is and this never happened.”
For Mr. Trump – a man accused of sexual assault and harassment by multiple women, including his ex-wife Ivana – keeping quiet on Dr. Ford’s allegations would seem like a prudent course. Instead, he has vouched for Judge Kavanaugh, questioned Dr. Ford’s story credibility and accused his political opponents of staging the controversy to “destroy and delay” the judge’s confirmation. On Wednesday, a day before the hearing, Mr. Trump said he could “withdraw his support” for Judge Kavanaugh depending on the testimony. Mr. Trump originally defended Judge Kavanaugh, but continued by saying, “you know, believe it or not, I’m going to see what’s said.”
The alleged assaults described by Judge Kavanaugh’s accusers are not federal crimes, so the Federal Bureau of Investigation would not have authority to investigate those cases criminally. But the FBI is in charge of doing background checks on prospective Supreme Court judges and other federal appointees, so its agents could look into the cases for the purpose of informing the Senate. They had already done this and closed the case. But in her negotiations to testify, Dr. Ford had asked for an FBI investigation before she would appear before the committee. Republican senators' insistence on seeing Dr. Ford within days, not weeks or months, made that very difficult.
Even if a new investigation had been possible in that time, ordering the FBI to investigate isn’t something the judiciary committee can do on its own. Some Senate committees have general oversight powers over the agency’s budget and policies, but ultimately the FBI answers not to the Senate, but to the Attorney-General and the President.
Mr. Grassley, the committee’s chairman, could have asked Mr. Trump to instruct the FBI to reopen its background check. President George H.W. Bush did this in 1991 during the Anita Hill controversy (more on that below). But Mr. Grassley has not sought Mr. Trump’s help in steering the FBI that way, despite multiple pleas from Democratic senators.
before the Senate judiciary committee to testify about alleged sexual harassment by then Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas. JENNIFER LAW |
In Washington and beyond, the Kavanaugh affair is bringing up memories of another case where a prospective Supreme Court judge was accused of sexual misconduct. In 1991, Clarence Thomas was picked by then-president George H.W. Bush for a seat on the top court. Law professor Anita Hill came forward with allegations that Justice Thomas had sexually harassed her years earlier, when he was her boss at two government agencies. Millions of Americans watched Senate hearings where Dr. Hill told her story, and was grilled by Republican senators suggesting she had made up the allegations and was mentally unstable.
The controversy didn’t stop Justice Thomas’s appointment: His confirmation went to the Democrat-controlled Senate and passed 52-48, with 11 Democrats supporting Mr. Bush’s candidate. But for many American women, the vitriolic treatment of Dr. Hill was a catalyst for political action. The next year was dubbed the “Year of the Woman” when a half-dozen female members were elected to the Senate, where there had been only two women previously. One of the “Year of the Woman” senators was Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat to whom Ms. Ford sent her letter about Judge Kavanaugh.
There are important differences between Hill vs. Thomas and Ford vs. Kavanaugh. One is race: Both Dr. Hill and Justice Thomas are black, a fact that Justice Thomas used vocally in defending himself against an investigation he called a “high-tech lynching.” But the other big difference is the #MeToo movement, which has renewed conversation about sexual assault and the obstacles women face in reporting it. Sexual misconduct receives much more attention than it did then, and allegations of wrongdoing have toppled powerful men in politics, media, the arts and other fields – which makes it harder for the Senate to ignore the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh. But Dr. Hill cautioned against seeing the judge’s hearing as a referendum on #MeToo’s progress, whatever its outcome. “Remember, #MeToo is about raising awareness," she told Associated Press in a telephone interview on Sept. 25. "Just because the Senate’s awareness hasn’t been raised, doesn’t mean that the rest of us haven’t evolved and learned.’”
Packing the Supreme Court with right-wing jurists has been one of Mr. Trump’s goals since the 2016 election, when he courted the support of conservative groups such as the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation to prepare lists of possible nominees. He’s already filled one vacancy with a candidate from that list, Neil Gorsuch; he was confirmed last year. But putting another conservative on the bench would give conservatives a majority on the nine-member court.
Judges Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are "originalists," a school of thought that encourage hard-line interpretations of written law and avoid inferring rights that the framers of the U.S. Constitution would not have foreseen. “A judge must … interpret the law, not make the law. A judge must interpret statutes as written,” Judge Kavanaugh said when his nomination was announced in July.
Here are some of the important issues at stake if Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed:
Sarah Kendzior: When you’re a well-connected judge, can you do anything?
David Shribman: Kavanaugh confirmation fight is a stark symbol of social and cultural divide
Elizabeth Renzetti: Kavanaugh protests are America at its best
Newer articles
<p>The two leaders have discussed the Ukraine conflict, with the German chancellor calling on Moscow to hold peace talks with Kiev</p>