Because a statement made not under oath isn’t worth a bucket of warm spit. Put your hand on the book, and under penalty of perjury, give your statement.
Her testimony would not be contributory. (The fact that she doesn’t remember is not dispositive one way or the other with respect to whether something happened.) OTOH, as Ford puts Judge in the room, his testimony is of acute interest.
Given what he has said publicly, and assuming you would like to see Kavanaugh confirmed, I am completely at a loss as to why you wouldn’t want Judge to testify under oath.
Yeah, sometimes life throws you a curveball.
I see. Can I assume you are able to make such an authoritative statement because you too are the survivor of a sexual assault in which you feared for your life?
Have you considered whether one of the boys involved might have said something?
Agreed. Which is why individuals should be compelled to testify under oath, wouldn’t you agree?
To the contrary, the penalty of perjury has been known to sharpen memory considerably.
More like:
Committee (D): Did you ever see Brett Kavanaugh place his hands on a woman in a manner that could be construed as an unwanted sexual advance? May I remind you, you are under oath, and will be charged with perjury if it is determined you lied before this committee.
Judge: Umm…
He’s also said that he’s never engaged in any behavior that could remotely be construed as an unwanted sexual advance. If this is true, Judge should have no problem answering the question posed to him in my hypothetical.
There are other compelling explanations for the complainant’s reticence. But my understanding is she has agreed to testify under oath. If I am correct in this regard, your point would seem to be moot.
All four have given statements under penalty of felony. None recall any such party. Including the two who aren’t Judge or Kavanaugh… So, two others. And one of these being her close female friend.
The two sides finalized the date and time of the hearing over email. Ford’s attorneys say they are still negotiating “a number of important procedural and logistical issues.” The lengthy talks were hampered by a disagreement over who will question Ford at the hearing, according to an email exchange obtained by NPR.
The existence of god can be debated, believed, denied or what ever.
But if you tell a leftist progressive that you’d like to see some proof of a claim, or even a cogent story pertaining to a sexual assault you’re a RACISTSEXISTXENOPHOBE!!!ARGGGGHHHH!!!
This hysteria coming from the left (note:not actual democrats) progressive movement has nothing to with rationality. If Trump was able to foment hysteria like we see coming from them there would be war in the streets.
Then what is the problem with having Judge testify? If things are as straightforward as you claim, not only should they not be opposing it–Kavanaugh et al should be insisting Judge be compelled to do so.