Dr. Christine Ford's Insane Demands

So … these are Dr. Christine Ford’s conditions before she would appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee;

    #1. Kavanaugh should not be present during her testimony.

    #2. No outside counsel is to ask her questions, only Senators.

    #3. The accused – Kavanaugh – must testify first.

    #4. Not on Monday.

    #5. Mark Judge and Patryck J. Smyth should be subpoenaed to appear and testify.

So what we have here is basically a demand for an Obama era college campus Title IX investigation as designed by radical Left-Wing feminists.

In my humble opinion, this is what Chuck Grassley should do;

    #1 would probably not really be a problem for Kavanaugh to acquiesce to, though I believe it must be rejected by Grassley based on Constitutional principles. Per the Constitution, which the Senate – like the courts – operates by, the accused must be allowed to confront his accuser with concessions allowed in some extreme cases, for minors. Kavanaugh can decide to waive this right and offer to stay away. Grassley can respond that he would relay her request to Kavanaugh to be absent from the room during her testimony, but his absence or presence is his decision, not hers.

    #2 should be rejected outright. Using outside counsel is neither rare nor unprecedented in Congressional inquiries and furthermore she cannot dictate how Senators utilize their time on the floor nor how the Senate conducts its affairs. Grassley should make it clear that he would, in the interests of fairness, allow outside counsel selected by her, or her attorney, or the minority, to question Kavanaugh.
    AUTHOR’S NOTE: If anyone had doubts that this is just partisan political jockeying, this demand should clear those doubts.

    #3 should be rejected outright and with extreme prejudice. It violates every single tenet of American justice, from the Magna Carta to the Constitution. The fact that her lawyer is even suggesting this is gross malpractice. The accused cannot be made to testify without formally being apprised of the charges against him. She goes first so she can make her accusation and he goes after her so he can *defend* himself.

    #4 should also be rejected. The Senate schedule is not arbitrary, and the date was publicly announced giving her and her attorneys – that she hired in August- enough time to prepare. Furthermore, she is not the only recipient of death threats – Mrs. Kavanaugh and her daughters have also been the target of threats and so has Mr. Kavanaugh himself. The sooner this is concluded, the better. Besides, Kavanaugh has already provided a statement and spoken with Senate staffers under pain of perjury – meaning that, for all intents and purposes, he has already gone first.

    #5 should be accepted, even though, Grassley should note, they have already provided statements, under pain of perjury, to the Committee.

If anything, these demands should torpedo whatever is left of Christine Ford’s credibility.

ADDITIONAL NOTE: These demands vividly illustrate the kangaroo court procedures that were enthusiastically enacted by colleges and universities across the country as directed by the Obama Administration’s Department of Education. Christine Ford has proven, without a shadow of a doubt, that she’s a product of the modern radically Left-Wing American university.

What’s worse is that large numbers of Democrats, legal practitioners, including many Judges – and as many as 3 current Supreme Court Justices – want to import this specie of “justice” – where the accused is stripped, of his right to counsel, of knowing the exact charges against him, of the ability to confront his accusers, of protection against double jeopardy and self-incrimination – from the Academy into the actual criminal and civil court systems.

To those who think that Ford’s demands should be accommodated because it is a Senate hearing and not a courtroom proceeding (even if only in a bid to appear “reasonable”), be warned that accepting this in any institution, public or private, brings the day closer where you or a loved one would find himself (or herself) in a real court, unable to defend himself against the state.