This sentence is badly constructed

[conuly]

Over the years, moments of interest from her post-Disney life would make headlines, like [...] her impassioned defense of then-nominee for Supreme Court justice Brett Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford, who turned out to be her aunt.

It took me multiple reads to get to the end in one piece. Sometimes, you just need to throw out the sentence you started with and redo it from scratch. (It doesn't help that in the original form the sentence has another example, which I removed for clarity about which part I was criticizing. That part is fine, but it makes the sentence even longer.)

Comments

[conuly]

I think it's more that they were attempting to order the sentence in terms of newsworthiness but the result is a jumbled mess.

[hudebnik]

They could have said "impassioned defense of Christine Blasey Ford, who had accused then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, and who was also her aunt." Most people would at least recognize the name "Christine Blasey Ford", even if they didn't remember why, so the next clause would remind them of why, and the parallel "who" dependent clauses would make crystal clear that the subject of both was Ford.

Or, briefer, "impassioned defense of her aunt Christine Blasey Ford, who had accused ..." Which sacrifices the slight twist at the end, but gets everything across clearly, with the bonus that if you do remember why you recognize the name "Christine Blasey Ford", you've already got the whole message before you even get to the comma.