The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.

Conventional wisdom, as dictated by a preponderance of television pundits, says there were no new facts that came out during the testimony of Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh this week. Many also said Rachel Mitchell, the sex crimes prosecutor that questioned Ford, didn't achieve much. I disagree.

There was at least one revelation that was shocking and the repercussions from it could be quite substantial. During Dr. Ford's testimony, she said she didn't know the Judiciary Committee had offered many, many times for her to testify in private and in California. It was shocking that she didn't know this because it was widely reported. References to it appeared in numerous news reports. But this is what Ford said during her testimony:

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?

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?

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.

In his column, Greg Jarrett provided the above excerpt from the hearing transcript and quoted Grassley's Sept. 19 email to Ford's counsel. “My staff would still welcome the opportunity to speak with Dr. Ford at any time, at any place convenient to her. Come to us, or we to you. I’m willing to have my staff travel to California, or anywhere else, to obtain her testimony.”

Dr. Ford said she wasn’t clear about what the offer was. Could it be possible that she really didn't know she didn't have to come to DC and testify in public? At least that would explain something that never made sense to me in the week leading up to the hearing. I wondered why, if she didn't want to be in the public eye, would she not accept the offer to testify privately. Grassley said over and over in interviews that they would be happy to take her testimony any time, any place.

And at this same time, anti-Kavanaugh Democrats were going on every cable news show saying Republicans were "bullying" her into testifying. That was the mantra. Democrat Senators knew Grassley had made the offer for her to testify privately in California, and the media who were all running the clips of him making the offer knew about it. Yet they allowed anti-Kavanaugh public officials and pundits to make the bullying charge over and over again unchallenged.

For Ford's lawyers to keep the committee's offer from her, would not only require them to decide to withhold it, but to also keep her away from all news, and from anyone who watched or read the news. If the lawyers did withhold that offer from Ford, they not only committed malpractice, but they viciously duped her into reliving the moment she said had ruined her life. And duped her into reliving it in the most public way possible. And they told her it was the Republicans' fault.

If that happened, that is evil. And it would be proof that the Democrats on the Committee, or at the very least her Democrat lawyers, got what they wanted all along – a televised #MeToo moment that would not only destroy a Supreme Court nomination, but serve as a club to bludgeon Republicans with in the midterms. And they didn't mind using a woman who claims to be a sexual assault victim to do it.

If Dr. Ford wasn't telling the truth about not knowing about the offer, then it was also a very important piece of testimony. As Senator Richard "Stolen Valor" Blumenthal pontificated during the hearing, "False in one thing, false in everything."