Some are hung up on the issue of wanting an FBI investigation before proceeding to Monday's hearing for Judge Kavanaugh.
But here are some helpful facts.
(thread)
But here are some helpful facts.
(thread)
The bottom line, first and foremost: there is a process to vet, investigate, and evaluate claims like these in an apolitical way, outside of the public eye
Democrats circumvented that process, risking damage to Dr. Ford, Judge Kavanaugh, and public trust
washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds…
Democrats circumvented that process, risking damage to Dr. Ford, Judge Kavanaugh, and public trust
washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds…
The day these allegations were aired in the Washington Post, Chairman Grassley and his team began the committee’s regular order process of ensuring these accusations are heard and investigated in order to be considered in Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation.
The committee has R and D investigators. Standard practice and regular order of the committee is to conduct bipartisan background calls, used to inform members.
As Chairman Grassley has repeatedly noted, Democrat staff has declined to participate.
As Chairman Grassley has repeatedly noted, Democrat staff has declined to participate.
As @ChuckGrassley said:
“Dr Fords testimony would reflect her personal knowledge and memory of events. Nothing the FBI/ any other investigator does would have any bearing on what Dr Ford tells the committee, so there is no reason for any further delay”
“Dr Fords testimony would reflect her personal knowledge and memory of events. Nothing the FBI/ any other investigator does would have any bearing on what Dr Ford tells the committee, so there is no reason for any further delay”
Additionally, every letter/statement/interview made to @SenJudiciary carries a legal consequence for not telling the truth, just like with sworn testimony. (18 USC 1001)
Letters like Mark Judge’s fulfill same need as sworn testimony or an FBI interview
cnn.com/2018/09/18/pol…
Letters like Mark Judge’s fulfill same need as sworn testimony or an FBI interview
cnn.com/2018/09/18/pol…
Patrick J. Smyth’s letter to the @senjudiciary Committee— noting that while he was named in Ms. Ford’s account, he never witnessed the events she described— similarly serves the same purpose as sworn testimony and similarly carries legal consequences.
cnn.com/2018/09/18/pol…
cnn.com/2018/09/18/pol…
Chairman Grassley has delayed the committee vote, offered open or closed hearings, and even offered to send committee staff to California at Dr. Ford’s convenience.
We remain hopeful that we’ll have an opportunity to hear from her.
We remain hopeful that we’ll have an opportunity to hear from her.
