Comments by the attorney for Christine Blasey-Ford have raised eyebrows and sparked new questions about her testimony accusing Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct.
Newly surfaced video of Ford’s progressive lawyer, Debra Katz, seemed to show her admitting that her client had come forward with her allegations against Kavanaugh in last year’s contentious confirmation hearings in order to attach an “asterisk” to his name and to defend Roe v. Wade.
(Video: Fox News)
Ryan Lovelace first quoted the high-powered lawyer in his book, “Search and Destroy: Inside the Campaign Against Brett Kavanaugh,” and spoke to “Fox & Friends” Thursday about the video and his research which involved attending many of Katz’ lectures.
He noted that the talk she gave at the University of Baltimore’s 11th Feminist Legal Theory Conference, entitled “Applied Feminism and #MeToo,” raised immediate red flags in hearing her say that Ford was “motivated by Roe v. Wade, particularly by tainting anything Justice Kavanaugh might do by it.”
“In the aftermath of these hearings, I believe that Christine’s testimony brought about more good than the harm misogynist Republicans caused by allowing Kavanaugh on the court,” Katz said in the video.
“He will always have an asterisk next to his name. When he takes a scalpel to Roe v. Wade, we will know who he is, we know his character, and we know what motivates him, and that is important,” she said of Kavanaugh. “It is important that we know, and that is part of what motivated Christine.”
Why would a competent lawyer say this? I’m stunned. https://t.co/7oJcyOISEm
— Megan McArdle (@asymmetricinfo) September 4, 2019
Ford had not referred to the landmark case or abortion rights in her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last year, but had noted that it was her sense of “civic duty” which prompted her to come forward with her accusation that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her when the two were in high school.
Lovelace noted that the comments made by Ford’s attorney about the motivation behind the attack on Kavanaugh contradict what Katz herself said at the time about her client and the testimony.
“It raises a lot of questions regarding what was the actual motivation,” the author said, questioning what the “purpose” was if the rationale was to “taint” the then-Supreme Court nominee.
Lovelace also noted that the video of Katz being circulated now has been available for months but the media has, predictably, ignored it.
“I really think it starts to show some of the negligence that went on in terms of the coverage of this story,” he said, suggesting that questions directed at Ford during the testimony may have been more probing if the motivation, as indicated by Katz, was known at the time.
According to the author’s book, Katz wondered if Ford’s “impeccable” background kept her from being silenced.
“We must ponder the very real possibility that had Dr. Ford not come from the same background, and the same race, and the same class, and the same country club as Brett Kavanaugh, had she not had an impeccable academic record and stellar professional credentials, if she was not on the faculty of Stanford with 70 publications to her name, if she wasn’t married to a man with two children, would she have been given the opportunity?” Katz asked.
Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano found the comments by Katz surprising.
“This statement that is attributed to her lawyer… appears to be a violation of the attorney/client privilege,” he said on “America’s Newsroom” Thursday.
(Video: Fox News)
“Why would she be saying this now and do we care what the motivation was for [Ford’s] allegations… She was a credible witness. He was a very credible witness. Neither of them changed anybody’s mind apparently, and he was confirmed,” he said.
“So did she make these allegations up because they really happened… or did she make these allegations [up] because she wanted to undermine his credibility in some future vote?’ Napolitano asked. “This is a very prominent and well-respected lawyer with very defined political views. I’m quite surprised that she would talk about the motivations of her client.”
“That information cannot be used against the client… What’s the worst-case scenario here — did she make this whole story up? That would be perjury and probably conspiracy,” he added. “Others might have been involved. Does the Justice Department want to investigate this? Or is this just a lawyer saying ‘you know, we lost this, he is on the court. We don’t like him.'”
DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW
Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!
- ‘Are we next?!’ Kilmeade breaks down shady FBI actions, concludes Trump justified in his outrage - August 30, 2022
- Grandfather throws down with aggressive kangaroo that attacked his dogs, but who really won? - June 4, 2022
- ‘My name is Dr. Robinson’: Proud abortionist snaps at Chip Roy calling her ‘Miss’ during hearing - May 19, 2022
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.