Is it possible that Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) treated Christine Blasey Ford even worse than the senator treated Brett Kavanaugh? Thursday’s hearings revealed no corroborating evidence for the claims against Judge Kavanaugh, who has been nominated by President Donald Trump to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. But the hearing did raise new questions about the way Professor Ford’s claims were handled by the lawyers and politicians who allegedly represent her.
As for potential new facts to support the accusations against Judge Kavanaugh, Judiciary committee Democrats didn’t even pretend to be looking for such evidence through much of Thursday’s spectacle. Instead of seeking information from the nominee, a number of his inquisitors spent their time trying to shame him into endorsing a delay in his confirmation process so that unnamed and un-elected government officials could seek such information at some point in the future, never mind senators’ constitutional duty to do the vetting themselves.
Democratic partisans on Twitter were cheering their team’s tactics, but one particularly important undecided voter was clearly not impressed. U.S. Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona is a Republican but a constant and sharp critic of the President. Having opted not to run for re-election this fall, Mr. Flake is not subject to the normal political pressures facing his colleagues. Mr. Flake says in a statement today:
When Dr. Ford’s allegations against Judge Kavanaugh surfaced two weeks ago, I insisted that she be allowed to testify before the committee moved to a vote. Yesterday, we heard compelling testimony from Dr. Ford, as well as a persuasive response from Judge Kavanaugh. I wish that I could express the confidence that some of my colleagues have conveyed about what either did or did not happen in the early 1980s, but I left the hearing yesterday with as much doubt as certainty.
What I do know is that our system of justice affords a presumption of innocence to the accused, absent corroborating evidence. That is what binds us to the rule of law. While some may argue that a different standard should apply regarding the Senate’s advice and consent responsibilities, I believe that the constitution’s provisions of fairness and due process apply here as well.
I will vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh.
Speaking of fairness and due process, Mr. Flake might have noted how far Sen. Feinstein strayed from such standards by sitting on Professor Ford’s allegations for weeks and then springing them on Judge Kavanaugh after his confirmation hearings and just before senators were expected to vote.
Of course the professor deserves fairness, too. That includes not just the right to be heard but also to be treated as something more than a political weapon by the people who claim to be looking out for her interests. Thursday raised new questions about precisely whose agenda was being served by the team providing her legal and political representation.
Megan McArdle, who for some reason agrees with Sen. Feinstein that the confirmation process should be delayed further, nonetheless ticks off in the Washington Post today a series of facts revealed in Professor Ford’s testimony:
• That Ford was willing to talk to investigators from the Judiciary Committee, though the committee was somehow unable to arrange this with her lawyers.
• That Ford was somehow unaware that the committee had, according to Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), offered to fly investigators to California to interview her, though her lawyers should presumably have communicated that fact.
• That Ford had found her lawyer through the office of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), the committee’s ranking Democrat, before the confirmation hearings began.
• That only Feinstein and Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-Calif.) had the letter in which Ford outlined her allegations. The letter set off the current turmoil when its existence was leaked to the media, despite Feinstein’s promise that it would be kept confidential — unless Ford decided to go public.
• That Ford’s fear of flying, which her attorneys claimed made it impossible to hold the hearing last week, apparently didn’t keep her from flying for work, family visits, or for surfing vacations in places as far-flung as French Polynesia.
For all but the most partisan Democrats, it surely must seem rather odd that again and again the people promoting Professor Ford’s claim seem to have acted against her interests. Who leaked her letter? Once her name was leaked, who worked to delay her opportunity to share her story? As for the Feinstein-selected lawyers, who were they really representing?
Professor Ford has every right to dispute whatever legal bill is presented to her. And if no such bill ever arrives, that will tell her and American voters a lot about what just happened.
If they so choose, California voters can require Dianne Feinstein to pay the political bill for this sad episode in November.
***
Bottom Stories of the Day
Other Than That, The Story Was Accurate
“Beto O’Rourke’s deported Panhandle honor student wasn’t actually deported,” Dallas Morning News, Sept. 27
Experience Is the Best Teacher
“Watching a Friend Get Eaten Could Help Animals Learn to Stay Alive,” Scientific American, Sept. 27
Maybe They Thought His Government Was Never That Great?
“Cuomo Blames Weather For Decline In NYS Population,” Jamestown Post-Journal, Sept. 26
***
Follow James Freeman on Twitter.
Subscribe to the Best of the Web email with one click.
To suggest items, please email best@wsj.com.
(Teresa Vozzo helps compile Best of the Web. Thanks to Myles Pollin, Joe Christian, Miguel Rakiewicz and Bruce Boyd.)
***
Mr. Freeman is the co-author of “Borrowed Time,” now available from HarperBusiness. This month Journal subscribers based in the U.S. can download a complimentary e-book edition.