Power Grab - Jason Chaffetz Page 0,37

the allegations. But as news organizations widely reported, sexual assault allegations are the jurisdiction of local police, not federal law enforcement. The FBI had no jurisdiction beyond the six FBI background checks performed over a twenty-five-year period that included interviews with 150 individuals who knew Justice Kavanaugh personally. Feinstein was surely aware of this fact. It was all part of the #whataretheyhiding strategy. As with document requests, they intentionally ask for something they know they can’t get. Then, when they don’t get it, they use that fact to shore up the narrative that someone is afraid of the truth.

Just ten days after the Ford allegations surfaced, a second allegation emerged, this one from Debra Ramirez, who claimed to remember an incident at Yale in which Kavanaugh supposedly exposed himself. The allegation was published uncritically by the New Yorker, after which the New York Times acknowledged passing up the story when witnesses would not corroborate it. Without vetting the allegations, Democratic senators responded by releasing statements demanding the White House rescind the Kavanaugh nomination. The committee would later reveal that Ramirez had contacted witnesses asking them to verify her story. None did.

Three days later, with the Ramirez allegations not yet discredited, another accuser came forward, this one represented by attorney Michael Avenatti. The accuser, Julie Swetnick, had a wild story involving a gang rape in high school. Like Ford’s attorney, Swetnick’s attorney played cat and mouse with committee investigators, promising evidence, but never producing it. Avenatti refused to allow Swetnick to be interviewed by the committee but did allow her to be interviewed by the media, where she would ultimately discredit herself.

The next morning, Ford testified for the first time—in public. While her story was heartbreaking, there was not one element of it that could be positively verified; this left the public and the committee to make their judgments based solely on emotions. Honestly, if I had such a witness testifying to something so personal and so painful, but who I knew could not corroborate her story, I would not put her in front of cameras for all to judge. If Democrats truly believed the allegations, why would they politicize, package, and market her pain for public consumption? Particularly given her inability to remember anything verifiable. They had to know her testimony would be deeply scrutinized. Why expose her in that way? It was a reprehensible and opportunistic display.

She told the Senate Judiciary Committee she was “100 percent certain” Kavanaugh was the one to abuse her. Later that day, Kavanaugh appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee to defend himself. In no uncertain terms, he denied the allegations. During the follow-up questioning, Senate Democrats sought to shore up their narrative of Kavanaugh as a hard-partying frat boy. He was asked about a fourth accuser, Judi Munro-Leighton, who had emailed the committee claiming Kavanaugh raped her.

The media breathlessly reported, analyzed, and researched every word. For days the allegations against Kavanaugh filled every newsfeed, newscast, and newsmagazine. In the stampede to get the story first, news outlets relaxed their standards for vetting, airing allegations that would later prove demonstrably false. Kavanaugh would forever be associated with the narrative Democrats had created around him.

Moving the Goalposts

Now, of course, the speciousness of the Democrat narrative could no longer be hidden. With the realization that none of the accusers could produce verifiable evidence of their claims, the narratives Democrats had so carefully spun began to fall apart. Democrats have an answer for that, too. It’s called moving the goalposts.

Changing the criteria by which one party can declare victory is a political norm, but disingenuous nonetheless. They were frustrated over how many documents they hadn’t received. Then it was frustration over the volume of documents they received the night before the hearing. Then it was frustration over the volume of documents marked as committee confidential, as explained by Senator Durbin during the hearing. They argued that the public needed to see these documents. Then, as every document that they requested be reviewed and made public was approved, they started releasing committee-confidential documents and claiming they were breaking the rules. They later demanded an FBI investigation. Then, when it was completed, it wasn’t good enough.

A similar evolution would repeat the following year as the special counsel investigation similarly failed to produce evidence to confirm the narrative that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to steal the presidential election. Once the results of Mueller’s investigation became public, the collusion narrative would be old and busted. An obstruction narrative would become