Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) said the comments made by the attorney who represented Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser could prompt a probe into the lawyer.
“We have to always make sure that when people come and give sworn testimony before any congressional committee, that it’s truthful and accurate. Any time that you see something like this, it’s probably worth looking into,” Tillis added, suggesting the accusations made against Kavanaugh last year could have been “politically motivated.”
“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.
“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. It is important that we know, and that is part of what motivated Christine,” she added.
Roe v. Wade is the 1973 Supreme Court decision that ruled a pregnant woman has the Constitutional right to an abortion without excessive government restrictions.
Christine Blasey Ford, a professor, accused Kavanaugh of sexually abusing her when they were both in high school in 1982. She came forward just before a vote was to be held on his nomination, she said, because she felt it was her “civic duty.”
“I am here not because I wanted to be. I am terrified. I am here because I believe it is my civic duty to tell you what happened to me while Brett Kavanaugh and I were in high school,” she told the Senate Judiciary Committee in a public hearing.
Tillis said on Fox that contrary to Katz’s claim, there is no asterisk next to Kavanaugh’s name.
“There is no asterisk next to Brett Kavanaugh,” he said. “That does seem to undermine what we all believed was a legitimate traumatic experience in [Ford’s] life. We'll just let the process play out. But clearly, a misrepresentation before a Senate committee is a very serious offense, and hopefully, we can get past that.”
If the motivation was known during the confirmation hearings, the results could have been different, he said.
“I think if we knew in September what we know now, there would have been all kinds of questions at the hearing about this,” he said.