The further we get from Rachel Mitchell’s seemingly innocuous questioning of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser, the more we realize just how effective she was in exposing many significant inconsistencies in Christine Blasey-Ford’s testimony.
During questioning by Mitchell, accuser Christine Blasey-Ford was caught off-guard and seemed surprised to learn that Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley had offered, on three separate occasions, to fly his staff out to meet with her in private so that she might answer questions without all the media attention:
Mitchell: Was it communicated to you by your counsel or someone else that the committee had asked to interview you, and that they offered to come out to California to do so?
Dr. Ford Attorney: I’m going to object, Mr. Chairman, to any call for privileged conversation between counsel and Dr. Ford.
Mitchell: Could you validate that the offer was made, without saying a word? Is it possible for that question to be answered without violating any counsel relationships?
Dr. Ford: Can I say something to you? Do you mind if I say something to you directly? I just appreciate that you did offer that. I wasn’t clear on what the offer was. If you were going to come out to see me, I would have happily hosted you and been happy to speak with you out there. I just did not – it was not clear to me that that was the case.
Under the Rules of Professional Conduct (American Bar Association Rule 1.4), Dr. Ford’s lawyers had a fiduciary responsibility to fully, honestly, and promptly convey that offer to their client. Dr. Ford’s response and demeanor suggested that they hadn’t fully explained Grassley’s offer to her.
At the time, Mitchell’s question seemed to be just an afterthought following others about her fear of flying in general. Dr. Ford’s answers there were equally obtuse. She admitted to flying regularly to places that included Hawaii, Costa Rica, French Polynesia, and Tahiti.
So, was her fear of flying real or was it used as a ruse to delay her testimony so that other staged events would have time to unfold. Oh, say things like protests to be organized, additional incredible accusers to come forward, and the rolling out of a mainstream media blitz to personally destroy Brett Kavanaugh.
For that to be the case, not only would Dr. Ford’s attorneys need to be involved but, at least one influential senator from the Judiciary Committee would’ve been required to orchestrate the committee’s response.
Dr. Ford’s attorneys, Debra Katz and Michael Bromwich, are both actively engaged in the resistance movement against Donald Trump. In fact, Bromwich resigned from his law firm to take this case for which he is receiving no compensations. Or, is he and from whom?
Senator Dianne Feinstein, who kept Dr. Ford’s letter secret for 45 days had, over the summer, recommended to Dr. Ford that Katz represent her. This was a serious and obvious conflict of interest by Feinstein, especially in light of how she orchestrated the rest of artificially constructed case against Brett Kavanaugh..
Dr. Ford had testified that she spoke directly with Senator Feinstein on only one occasion. She also testified that conversation occurred on or before August 7th while she was in Delaware. That was more than five weeks before the letter became public.
Given the manner in which Feinstein and her attorneys subsequently breached Dr. Ford’s confidence it strongly suggests that Feinstein deliberately inserted activist attorney Debra Katz into Dr. Ford’s camp for the purpose of turning this into exactly what it has become – a sh*tshow intended to delay the confirmation process while her media allies set about destroying Judge Kavanaugh.
As Fox News’ legal correspondent Gregg Jarrett notes:
“The very senator who Ford trusted to keep her story confidential encouraged the professor to his Democratic-activist lawyers who may have been motivated to push for a public hearing in defiance of their client’s wishes is extraordinarily significant.”
Jarrett then asks the question:
“Are these the kind of attorneys who are interested in protecting their client’s best interests or are they more interested in advancing their own partisan anti-Trump agenda?”
Maybe the FBI could answer these questions when they reopen the investigation this week.