Liz Peek: Kavanaugh's fate: Does the Senate still believe in innocent until proven guilty?

close

Video

Breaking down the scope of the FBI's Kavanaugh investigation

President Trump calls for a 'comprehensive' FBI investigation of sexual misconduct claims against Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh; insight from Berit Berger, former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York.

What happens to the Kavanaugh nomination now? In a perfect world, the FBI would, as now requested by President Trump, conduct a one-week investigation into the unproven charges that have been brought against Kavanaugh, report that they have discovered no new evidence that corroborates accusations of misconduct, and the Senate would then vote to confirm the judge as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

But, this is not a perfect world.  Democrats and their handmaidens in the liberal media will spend the next week upending the Maryland countryside, hoping to reveal some dispositive proof that Kavanaugh is guilty of something, or indeed anything, that renders him unworthy to sit on the nation’s highest court. Failing that, they will call for another week of investigations, and then another, spooling out the grueling uncertainty until Judge Kavanaugh or the White House throws in the towel and concedes defeat.

That is the plan, so magnificently set in play by Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s reprehensible decision to sit on the allegations sent to her by Christine Blasey Ford in late July.

The plan to delay and obstruct until after the midterm elections, in hopes that Democrats will take control of the Senate and therefore determine who sits on the court, is working and has now been buttressed by Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake’s demand for an extra week.

We do not blame Feinstein; blocking the appointment of a conservative jurist is her job. Flake, who has allowed his hatred of Trump to swamp his avowed conservative values, is another matter. As Sen. Lindsey Graham put it, he isn’t angry at his Arizona colleague because “Jeff is 100 percent consistent.” Yes, consistently putting his personal pique ahead of his party and his country.

But for all the ecstasy on the left, barring meaningful new revelations, at the end of next week we will be exactly where we are today. The world watched and for the most part believed that Christine Blasey Ford was truthful in relating her memories of that long-ago summer and the alleged sexual attack by  Kavanaugh. Soon after, most were also persuaded by the emotional and emphatic denials of Judge Kavanaugh. The testimony from both, while riveting, did not solve anything.

We know that because betting sites during and after Ford’s testimony showed the odds of Kavanaugh being confirmed to the court plummeting but then turning around entirely once the judge took the chair and launched his impassioned self-defense. She said, and he said, quite convincingly.

The Senate vote, should we get to that point, will require senators like Republicans Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine to ask themselves, who is the real Judge Brett Kavanaugh?  The highly respected federal judge, who has been vetted by the FBI on six separate occasions (including two deep dives), the law lecturer beloved by his students, admired by his colleagues, and given the highest rating available – unanimously -- by the American Bar Association? The doting father who leads his daughter in praying for Dr. Ford, loyal husband and generous community member who has built an impeccable reputation for supporting and promoting women?

Or is he the monster fabricated by ideological opponents, a drunk who astonishingly was never reported for his misdeeds, never publicly revealed as a sexual predator despite allegedly engaging in repeated offenses in high school and college and who, during nearly 30 years in the public eye, has hidden those impulses from all who surround him?

Or is he the Kavanaugh who apparently came up clean while serving on the staff of Ken Starr’s investigation into charges of sexual misconduct against President Clinton, despite James Carville declaring “war” on the independent counsel’s effort and reportedly digging up dirt about others on the team?

While Ford’s testimony was compelling it contained inconsistencies that cast the entire proceedings in an ever more political light.

In an op-ed in the New York Times written before Christine Blasey Ford stepped (or was pushed) forward to publish her accusations against the judge, Kavanaugh was deemed by liberal Hillary Clinton supporter Akhil Reed Amar a “superb, widely respected nominee whose ideas have influenced the U.S. Supreme Court.” In his piece, Amar, Kavanaugh’s former law professor, noted that Democrats “could try to sour the hearings by attacking Judge Kavanaugh and looking to complicate the proceedings whenever possible.”

Amar suggested that Democrats were entitled to ask “fair” questions of Kavanaugh, which would include “inquiries not just about Judge Kavanaugh’s past writings and activities but also about how he believes various past notable judicial cases (such as Roe v. Wade) should have been decided — and even about what his current legal views are on any issue, general or specific.”

Would that Democrats would have explored such issues, instead of engaging in a brass-knuckle and politically driven character assassination based on unproven accusations.

Collins, Murkowski, et al will be hard pressed to come up with any solid reasons to counter Judge Kavanaugh’s fine reputation.

Against the body of evidence that is his life we have the uncorroborated accusation by Ford that a drunken teenage Kavanaugh attacked her decades ago. The witnesses, whom she says were present that night, have all signed sworn statements that they recall no such party or event, including her best friend from that time. To be clear, lying in such a statement would constitute a felony.

While Ford’s testimony was compelling it contained inconsistencies that cast the entire proceedings in an ever more political light.

For instance, her lawyer had claimed last week that Ford could not attend the planned committee hearing on September 17 because she was afraid of flying, and so would need time to drive to Washington from California. Pressed by the veteran prosecutor Rachel Mitchell on the numerous airplane trips she has apparently taken both for pleasure and for work, Ford could only muster the weak response that “It’s easier to travel going that direction when it’s a vacation.”

Ford’s not-credible pretext for postponing her appearance seemed to fit Senator Graham’s charge that Democrats were simply delaying the proceedings in hopes of winning the Senate in November.

Given the enormous stakes – the establishment of a conservative-leaning Supreme Court dedicated to upholding our constitution --senators must vote in favor of Brett Kavanaugh’s brilliant life work, his reputation for decency and integrity, and not be swayed by uncorroborated charges of misbehavior that took place 36 years ago. He is, after all, innocent until proven guilty.

Let us hope they will.