Woman Accusing Brett Kavanaugh of Sexual Harassment and Her Lawyer Are Democrat Activists

National   Kyle Drennen   Sep 17, 2018   |   4:09PM    Washington, DC

While all three network morning shows on Monday reported on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh being accused of sexual assault as a teenager in the 1980s and conducted interviews with the accuser’s lawyer, only NBC pointed out that both the woman leveling the allegation and her attorney were Democratic Party activists.

During an interview with attorney Debra Katz on the Today show, co-host Savannah Guthrie briefly noted the political affiliation of her client, California psychology professor Christine Blasey Ford: “And then, finally, you know, according to The Washington Post, she’s a Democrat. A lot of people look at this and say, here’s somebody who has a political motive to tell this story. What would you say to that?”

Katz dismissed the question: “I would say no one in their right mind, regardless of their motive, would want to inject themselves into this process and face the kind of annihilation that she will be subjected to by those who want this nominee to go through. This is not a politically motivated action.” Ford has not only donated to Democrats, but also recently signed on to a Physicians for Human Rights letter protesting the Trump administration’s immigration policy.

Neither Guthrie, nor her colleagues on ABC’s Good Morning America and CBS This Morning, ever confronted Katz on her own Democratic activism. In 2017, Katz labeled all senior Trump administration officials to be “miscreants.” Hypocritically, she also staunchly and repeatedly defended Bill Clinton against claims of sexual harassment made by Paula Jones in the 1990s.

While Katz didn’t have to answer such difficult questions, in the 9:00 a.m. ET hour, NBC anchor Megyn Kelly informed viewers about the liberal leanings of both Katz and Ford. During a panel discussion about the Kavanaugh allegations, Kelly mentioned that Ford was “a big Democratic donor.” Correspondent Stephanie Gosk acknowledged that fact, but argued: “…something that is politically motivated can also be true. I mean, the events could have happened even if the revelation of them was politically motivated.”

SIGN THE PETITION: Vote to Confirm Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh

Minutes later, Kelly further explained:

In this case, it’s dicier because she is a Democrat donor, his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford. Her lawyer, Debra Katz, is a very well known Democratic activist. Who by the way – her lawyer was very defensive of Bill Clinton when he got accused of Paula Jones and said that one allegation of Bill Clinton allegedly taking out his private parts in front of Paula Jones wasn’t enough for sexual harassment. But now, wants to – you know, this Supreme Court nomination not to go forward because of this allegation.

Also appearing on the panel was Rolling Stone Contributing Editor Joe Levy, who immediately used the allegations against Kavanaugh to push Democratic talking points about the handling of the Senate confirmation hearings:

And this entire process has been politically motivated or politically managed. You know, we’re talking about a process that seems to have been rushed, where thousands and thousands of pages regarding Kavanaugh’s time in the White House working for George W. Bush were presented to Democrats at the very last minute, at the 11th hour.

Kelly pushed back: “But that ship has sailed. That has nothing to do with this.” Levy continued: “Well, all I’m saying is, should we be rushing now? Should we take a pause?” Kelly shut him down: “But they’re two separate things. You don’t use a #MeToo allegation to delay a confirmation vote on a Supreme Court justice because you’re unhappy you didn’t get documents not relating to the allegation.”

The host looked at both sides of the story, giving credence to both Ford’s claims and Kavanaugh’s denials:

I thought her best fact was the fact that the story itself doesn’t sound like that’s somebody just making it up out of whole cloth….on his side, having said what I think her best point is. It’s been 34 years, he was allegedly 17 when it happened. How is he supposed to defend himself? There’s a reason we have statutes of limitation in this country, and that’s because, this isn’t a criminal case, but that’s because memory fades, details fade, and it’s impossible for him to disprove a negative, to prove a negative, “I didn’t do it.”

Wrapping up the lengthy segment, Kelly issued a warning to Democrats:

I’ll say one last thing, Democrats who are hoping to get rid of Kavanaugh because they don’t like him as the choice, careful what you wish for. Because if you think Trump is going to nominate somebody who is less conservative than Brett Kavanaugh, if Kavanaugh falls through, you got another thing coming.

Here is a full transcript of Kelly’s September 17 panel discussion:

9:03 AM ET

MEGYN KELLY: So where does that leave us? Because the vote is scheduled for committee on Thursday. Chuck Grassley is in charge of whether that goes forward and appears to be full steam ahead on it. And I’ll start with this, his point is, this woman came forward to Dianne Feinstein in late July. They had Brett Kavanaugh up there for four days on Capitol Hill. These Democratic senators who had been notified of it had private one-on-ones with Kavanaugh. They’ve had the opportunity to raise this – they’ve known and they’ve had the chance to raise it with him and they didn’t. And now, we’re four days before the vote, five days, whatever it was yesterday. And now, she’s come out, now we know her name, now we know the allegations, and should this stymie the allegation, just as a due process matter, given the way it’s been handled?

STEPHANIE GOSK: Isn’t part of the reason that her – that it came up in meetings but not specifically was because she didn’t want her name revealed?

JO LING KENT: That’s right.

GOSK: And it wasn’t until she decided that she wanted to be named. And unfortunately, what she tried to do was to do this anonymously and have it affect the vote. But this is a public process. And unfortunately, the only way to do it would be to come out publicly. And now, the public should hear her story. And you actually had Kellyanne Conway this morning saying that there should be a hearing on this. And I’m struck by Grassley’s comments. You know, he’s basically saying that this was politically motivated. And I can certainly understand that as a theory. Look at the timing of it, absolutely.

KELLY: And she’s a big Democratic donor.

GOSK: Right, but you also –

KENT: The affiliation.

GOSK: Yeah, but you also have to consider the fact that something that is politically motivated can also be true. I mean, the events could have happened even if the revelation of them was politically motivated.

JOE LEVY [CONTRIBUTING EDITOR, ROLLING STONE]: And this entire process has been politically motivated or politically managed. You know, we’re talking about a process that seems to have been rushed, where thousands and thousands of pages regarding Kavanaugh’s time in the White House working for George W. Bush were presented to Democrats at the very last minute, at the 11th hour.

KELLY: But that ship has sailed. That has nothing to do with this.

LEVY: Well, all I’m saying is, should we be rushing now? Should we take a pause?

KELLY: But they’re two separate things. You don’t use a #MeToo allegation to delay a confirmation vote on a Supreme Court justice because you’re unhappy you didn’t get documents not relating to the allegation.

LEVY: Okay, so let’s separate them. But let’s say, was there a rush at one point? Should we be rushing now? That’s my only question, should we take our time and give this a thorough hearing?

KENT: It seems like that may be a possibility here, especially after what has been said. Her lawyer went on the Today show this morning and said she’d be willing to testify under oath in a public hearing. That is a major step for someone who previously did not want to be identified. She’s reportedly even receiving a lot of hate mail, a lot of scary stuff coming inbound now. And so she’s willing to speak out. The question is, will the Judiciary Committee Chairman actually allow this to happen?

KELLY: The stakes are always higher when there’s politics involved. And we saw this with the Roy Moore accusers, as well. The women, two of them came on this show and they were Republicans. Roy Moore was a Republican. But still some Republicans backing him said it’s political. And the women were saying, “How is it political? I’m a Republican. You know, I just don’t like this particular man and I had this experience with him.”

In this case, it’s dicier because she is a Democrat donor, his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford. Her lawyer, Debra Katz, is a very well known Democratic activist. Who by the way – her lawyer was very defensive of Bill Clinton when he got accused of Paula Jones and said that one allegation of Bill Clinton allegedly taking out his private parts in front of Paula Jones wasn’t enough for sexual harassment. But now, wants to – you know, this Supreme Court nomination not to go forward because of this allegation.

I will say this, on the one hand, as a lawyer, you look back, if Christine Blasey Ford is making it up, she chose an interesting way of doing it. If you’re gonna make up an allegation about a guy just to scurry the nomination, to ruin the nomination, why do you put another person in the room?

Her allegation is that years ago they were at a party, she had a one-piece bing suit on with clothes over it. We haven’t independently confirmed, this is she told Washington Post. And that Kavanaugh got her on a bed, was pressing up against her. And then she tried to scream and he put his hand over her mouth. And there was a third person named Mark Judge, a friend of Kavanaugh’s, who jumped on top of them, twice. The second time, she managed to get loose and run into a different bathroom and save herself.

If you going to make something up just to hurt somebody, why do you put another person in the room and why do you choose a friend of the alleged perpetrator?

GOSK: It’s a really good question.

KELLY: I’d say, “It was just me and him. That’s it.”

GOSK: There are a couple of other details, too, though. There’s the fact that in 2014 she talked about it in therapy with her husband. The fact that, Debra Katz, think of her what you may, had her sit down and do a polygraph, which she passed on this.

KELLY: The polygraph, though, can I just before you go. The polygraph, to me, jumped out. She said, the polygraph statement reflected her passing the admission that her statement summarizing the facts of what happened, she passed when asked about that. I wouldn’t put too much weight on the polygraph. First of all, they’re not admissible in court for a reason. And second of all, we don’t know what she actually said yes to in that polygraph, we don’t know who administered it. I know it was a former FBI agent. But what criteria did he apply?

KENT: That’s fair. That’s a fair question.

KELLY: So I would throw that one away.

LEVY: But to go to the first point that Stephanie was making, this is something that she’s been talking about, we’ve been told, by both her husband and her therapist, in therapy, since 2012.

KENT: There are notes.

LEVY: There are notes. It’s not unusual for a victim to take this long to process and be able to talk about events from a childhood moment.

KELLY: Right. She was only 15 when this allegedly happened.

LEVY: So if this is something that – I mean, this would be extraordinarily odd. An extraordinarily odd way of going about something engineered.

KELLY: The problem, though, is that – so that’s sort of the – I thought her best fact was the fact that the story itself doesn’t sound like that’s somebody just making it up out of whole cloth. It’s just –

KENT: Who would want to go through this?

KELLY: And why would she stop it at, you know, he didn’t complete the assault. You know what I mean? If you want to take a shot at somebody, I think you’d be a little grander in the allegation and you wouldn’t put a witness in the room.

LEVY: What would be the possible reason to make something up, starting in 2012?

KELLY: Right, exactly. Well, I mean, it could have been his ascent to, you know, the federal – if you’re going to argue it on his side, right? You could say, he was ascending in the halls of power, he was getting on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. She’s sitting there, maybe she had a negative experience with him, maybe he blew her off. This is what defends would say, right? She’s had an axe to grind about him and she lays the foundation, as a Democrat donor, saying, “I don’t want” – this is – I’m just going with the most dramatic theory in defense of him.

But I’ll give you a more legitimate one on his side, having said what I think her best point is. It’s been 34 years, he was allegedly 17 when it happened. How is he supposed to defend himself? There’s a reason we have statutes of limitation in this country, and that’s because, this isn’t a criminal case, but that’s because memory fades, details fade, and it’s impossible for him to disprove a negative, to prove a negative, “I didn’t do it.” His friend, Mark Judge, has come forward saying, “absolutely not.” Kavanaugh’s defense is unequivocal, “This never happened, period, end of report.”

LEVY: His friend who has written a memoir about his experience with teenage alcoholism.

KELLY: Right, but you know as well as I do, Joe –

LEVY: And did say he was a blackout drunk.

KELLY: Correct. But you know as well as I do that being a drunk, foolish teenager, doesn’t necessarily mean that you are somebody who commits sexual assaults. And that’s – and Kavanaugh is not the drunk, the person who’s admitted to being a recovering alcoholic.

GOSK: But the Senate now has to adjudicate it, right?

KENT: Yes, exactly.

GOSK: And someone – you know, the statute of limitations exists in a criminal trial. But now we’re talking about something totally different. And what do you do now, as a senator, facing these competing narratives?

KENT: Is this enough to reflect on someone’s character? And that is something the Judiciary Committee has to decide, with all of the facts they can get in front of them.

KELLY: And she’s gonna – you have to feel for her. Because listen, unless this woman is completely insane and has made this entire thing up as a political hit job, that she’s about to be put through it. She’s about to be put through it. And that’s probably why she didn’t want to attach her name to this to begin with. But she’s gonna get cross-examined and people are gonna look into her history.

I mean, listen, as they should, if they’re going to derail a Supreme Court nomination about it and figure out whether she – does she – is she a proven liar? Has she accused others? This is what we saw in the Duke case, remember? The woman came forward, everybody believed her. It turned out she had accused many people of rape, it was all lies, it was lies in the Duke case. That doesn’t mean that’s the case here. But I for one think it deserves more investigation.

GOSK: For sure.

KELLY: Because the Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment. And if this guy does have a history of attacking a woman, of sexually attacking a woman, we need to know. And if it’s not, if you can’t prove it to people’s satisfaction, then he should be confirmed. Because Trump gets his vote.

I’ll say one last thing, Democrats who are hoping to get rid of Kavanaugh because they don’t like him as the choice, careful what you wish for. Because if you think Trump is going to nominate somebody who is less conservative than Brett Kavanaugh, if Kavanaugh falls through, you got another thing coming.

LifeNews.com Note: Kyle Drennen is an MRC News Analyst and a graduate of Providence College with a Bachelor of Arts degree in History and Political Science. This was originally posted on the Media Research Center blog NewsBusters.