Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Official Judge Kavanaugh confirmed to the Supreme Court

Collapse
X
Collapse
  • Page of 245
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 11 51 101 245 template Next
  • #1

    Official Judge Kavanaugh confirmed to the Supreme Court

    Update Oct 8th:



    Trump swears Brett Kavanaugh onto the Supreme Court











    Update Oct 6th:







    Final Kavanaugh Vote


    Judge Kavanaugh is now Justice Kavanaugh on the SCOTUS


    Yea: 51 (50 present)

    Nay: 49 (48 present)




    LIVE: Senate holds final vote on Kavanaugh:











    Also...








    CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD HAS NO PLANS TO FURTHER PURSUE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST BRETT KAVANAUGH: ATTORNEY


    With the Senate voting to confirm Brett Kavanaugh as an associate justice of the Supreme Court, Christine Blasey Ford has no further plans to pursue her sexual misconduct allegations against Kavanaugh, according to her lawyers.

    Ford only wanted to speak with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, her attorneys told CNN on Friday. Ford does not want the situation to "drag on into the next Congress should Democrats end up winning control on Capitol Hill," the network reported.

    When asked about the possibility of impeachment proceedings, attorney Debra Katz told the network: "Professor Ford has not asked for anything of the sort. What she did was to come forward and testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee and agree to cooperate with any investigation by the FBI, and that's what she sought to do here."

    "She does not want him to be impeached?" CNN's Dana Bash later asked.

    "No," Katz replied flatly.

    Ford's attorney Lisa Banks added that Ford feels she did the right thing by testifying and has no regrets.

    Kavanaugh's pathway to confirmation seemed unfettered until Ford accused him of drunkenly sexually assaulting her in a locked bedroom at a 1982 high school gathering. Two other women later emerged with sexual misconduct allegations from the 1980s. Kavanaugh has denied the allegations.

    Kavanaugh's foes cast him as a product of a hard-drinking, male-dominated, private school culture in Washington's upscale Maryland suburb of Bethesda. He and his defenders asserted that his high school and college focus was on academics, sports and church.
    https://abc7news.com/politics/ford-w...rther/4427136/







    Update Oct 5th:


    Senator Collins pledged to vote YES on Kavanaugh.

    Live: Susan Collins announces her decision on Kavanaugh vote










    Cloture vote:

    Yea: 51 Nay: 49

    The final vote is to be held within 30 hours.





    LIVE: Senate to take cloture vote on Kavanaugh nomination












    Update Oct 4th:



    Flake and Collins seem to be satisfied with the FBI report.

    Meanwhile, the Democrat senators who agreed to the one week extension for an FBI investigation are now crying and backtracking, claiming cover ups and conspiracies...



    Flake: No corroboration for Ford’s claims in FBI report


    Sen. Jeff Flake (Ariz.), a key swing Republican vote, said Thursday that a new FBI report on Brett Kavanaugh has failed to corroborate Christine Blasey Ford's allegation of sexual assault against the Supreme Court nominee.

    Flake said there was nothing in the FBI’s supplementary background check to corroborate the claims from Ford, which threw Kavanaugh’s nomination into turmoil starting last month.

    The Arizona Republican said he agrees with fellow GOP Sen. Susan Collins (Maine) in viewing the FBI report as thorough and failing to back up Ford’s claims that Kavanaugh assaulted her at a house gathering in 1982, when both were in high school.

    “I think Susan Collins was quoted saying it was very thorough but no new corroborative information came out of it. That’s accurate,” Flake told reporters after reviewing the FBI report in the secure compartmented information facility in the Capitol Visitor Center.

    “I wanted this pause, we’ve had this pause. We’ve had the professionals, the FBI, determine — given the scope that we gave them, current credible allegations — to go and do their review which they’ve done,” Flake said.

    “Thus far we’ve seen no new credible corroboration, no new corroboration at all,” he said.

    Flake, Collins and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) are the three Republican senators who are undecided on Kavanaugh.

    Republicans control 51 seats and can afford only one defection and still confirm the nominee without any Democratic votes.

    Flake announced his support for Kavanaugh last week shortly before the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to send his nomination to the floor.

    But after being confronted in a Senate elevator by two women who said they were victims of sexual assault, Flake struck a deal with Democrats on the Judiciary Committee to delay a floor vote for a week to give the FBI time to investigate the assault allegations against Kavanaugh.

    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) agreed to postpone the vote and allow a supplementary investigation after Collins and Murkowski sided with Flake’s request.

    Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) announced Thursday morning that the FBI failed to corroborate Ford’s claims after interviewing 10 additional witnesses. Other Republicans have since agreed with that assessment.
    https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...-in-fbi-report






    The Latest: Collins says FBI probe seems ‘very thorough’

    […..]
    https://apnews.com/c4ef2acd337c42d1b55c5c1536ca3048







    Update Oct 3rd:




    Avenatti comes out with second accuser, who he claims is also totally legit...








    Here is what Mike Davis, Grassley's chief counsel had to say to Avenatti:









    RealClear Investigations about Ford's BS second door narrative...



    Renovation Records Undercut Ford's Exit-Door Account

    Real estate and other records undercut a key part of Christine Blasey Ford’s account of why she finally came forward with charges of attempted rape against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh after some 30 years.

    Ford testified last week that she had never revealed the details of the alleged attack until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband. She said the memories percolated up as they revisited a disagreement they’d had over her insistence on installing a “second front door" when they had remodeled their Palo Alto, Calif., home.

    The need to explain a decision her husband “didn’t understand,” Ford testified, pushed her to say she wanted the door to alleviate symptoms of “claustrophobia” and “panic attacks" she still suffered from an attempted rape allegedly perpetrated by Kavanaugh in high school during the early 1980s.

    "Is that the reason for the second door — front door -- is claustrophobia?” asked Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. “Correct,” Ford replied.

    Ford never specified when the renovation took place, leaving a possible impression that it and the therapy session happened around the same time.
    But documents reveal the door was installed years before as part of an addition, and has been used by renters and even a marriage counseling business.

    “The door was not an escape route but an entrance route,” said an attorney familiar with the ongoing congressional investigation. “It appears the real plan for the second front door was to rent out a separate room."

    The discrepancy raises fresh doubts about Ford's candor and credibility amid other inconsistencies, congressional and other knowledgeable sources say, including her purported "fear of flying." Ford initially refused to submit to an interview with the committee because of an alleged airplane phobia, but investigators established that she had taken a number of flights back East this summer, and had previously flown to Hawaii, Costa Rica, French Polynesia and other South Pacific islands.

    Palo Alto city records show that a building permit for an additional room and exterior door was issued to Ford and her husband on Feb. 4, 2008 — more than four years before the May 2012 therapy session where, she says, she first identified Kavanaugh as her attacker.

    All the remodeling, including a new bathroom, was completed by February 2010. The only additional permits issued to Ford at her Palo Alto address are for "solar panels" on the roof, a "solar hot water system” in the garage, and an “electric vehicle charge station” for the driveway -- all of which were issued after 2012.

    Other documents, including health care-provider registration records, reveal that a marriage counselor listed Ford’s home address as her place of employment, ostensibly using the extra room and door for her clinical practice. That marriage therapist, Sylvia Adkins Randall, sold the home to the Fords in 2007, but continued to maintain the address for her business.

    Contacted by phone, Dr. Randall expressed concern about her real estate transaction and prior relationship with Ford being reported.

    “I don’t want it to be mentioned,” she said. "It’s personal.”

    Randall is a licensed therapist who specializes in treating “disturbing memories from the past." She supports Ford and described her allegation against Kavanaugh as “credible.”

    Since the second front door was installed, moreover, students from local colleges have lived in the additional room with the private door. In fact, under congressional questioning Thursday, Ford testified she has “hosted” various other residents there, including “Google interns.”

    The attorney said the tenants call into question Ford’s claims about why she installed the additional exterior door in her home.

    “Renters and a business operating out of Dr. Ford’s home would explain the added door,” he said. "Clearly, there were business purposes [for it], not just ones related to her anxieties."

    Also casting doubt on Ford's story is the fact she installed no such escape door at a second home, which property records show she and her husband own in Santa Cruz, Calif., less than five blocks from the beach.

    Yet she recently told a close friend, according to media reports, that she has resisted purchasing a home without a second exit from the master bedroom. Without it, she said she would never feel safe.

    “Obviously, something happened that traumatized her so much that she’s afraid of being trapped,” her friend Jim Gensheimer, a photojournalist who worked for the San Jose Mercury News, told the Los Angeles Times on Sept. 19.

    Property records show Ford and her husband, Russell Ford, bought the beach house in 2007. This July – the same month Ford sent a letter to Feinstein accusing Kavanaugh of attacking her -- Ford applied for permits to build a front porch and new decks at the home, located on Seaside Street in Santa Cruz. There is no application for a second front door, however, and the recent permits are the only ones applied for since 2007.

    No evidence has emerged of any other exterior door construction at either of Ford's homes, authorized or not.

    "If she rents out the room to Google employees, how does she get access to the second door to escape a perceived attacker?” noted the attorney, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “Renting out the room is completely contrary to her stated reason of why she wanted the second front door."

    Randall said she is not the therapist who counseled Ford in 2012. She said "it’s just a weird coincidence” that the two are connected through the property and share the same profession. Ford is a research psychologist.

    Two other marriage counselors who worked for Randall’s now-defunct Palo Alto clinic -- Couples Resource Center -- also shared an address with Ford’s home.

    A Senate Judiciary Committee spokeswoman said that Ford’s lawyers have provided neither the therapist's notes nor the therapist’s name to committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), even though they have furnished that information to Democrats on the committee.

    “Democrats won’t share it,” she said, just as they withheld the July 30 letter Ford sent to Feinstein for almost two months.

    The aide said that Grassley’s office is following “a ton of leads” to learn the identity of the therapist, and offered that Ford’s story about her therapy session and the so-called escape door is a critical part of the investigation into her allegations.

    “The investigative side of the committee thinks it’s a good lead,” she said, “and they are pursuing it."

    Ford’s attorneys did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

    Ford, a registered Democrat who has marched against Trump policies, claims she’s not “political” and that Kavanaugh first “came up in counseling” in May 2012 strictly because of the door.

    But something else was going on at the time, and it apparently caught Ford’s attention.

    Just weeks earlier, the national media reported that GOP presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney was planning to tap Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court if he won the White House.

    In a March 26, 2012, article in the The New Yorker, for example, legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin warned that Kavanaugh was on Romney’s short list. Toobin said Kavanaugh would pose a threat to the Affordable Care Act and other Obama policies. He also slammed Kavanaugh's work as a federal prosecutor during the investigation of President Clinton over the Lewinsky scandal, noting that he wrote “startling” sections of a report for Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, including that “the President fondled and kissed her bare breasts …"

    Striking an ominous tone, Toobin concluded: "If a Republican, any Republican, wins in November, his most likely first nominee to the Supreme Court will be Brett Kavanaugh."

    Ford, who is liberal, seemed aware at the time that Kavanaugh was in the running.

    "I recall saying that the boy who assaulted me could someday be on the U.S. Supreme Court, and spoke a bit about his background at an elitist all-boys school in Bethesda, Md.,” she testified, recounting her May 2012 therapy session. "My husband recalls that I named my attacker as Brett Kavanaugh."

    Still, Democrats point to her 2012 therapy session as evidence her charges are not motivated by politics. They claim she related her accusation to her husband and therapist “long before” Kavanaugh was in the news as a Supreme Court pick.

    Asked by a Democratic senator if there is “a political motivation for your coming forward with your account of the assault by Brett Kavanaugh,” Ford responded, “No."

    Republicans aren’t buying it.

    “So, after telling no one her story about Kavanaugh for decades, she suddenly remembered and spoke about it in couples therapy, triggered by a spat over a door, in 2012 -- which also happens to be when her fellow Democrats were worrying about the possibility that Mitt Romney could win the presidency and appoint Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court? Call me skeptical," a senior GOP congressional staffer said. “There's obviously more to the story than just a door."

    After Romney lost the 2012 presidential race, and the threat of Kavanaugh ascending to the high court passed, Ford moved on.

    "After that May 2012 therapy session,” Ford said, "I did my best to ignore the memories of the assault, because recounting them caused me to relive the experience, and caused panic and anxiety."

    But she said her attitude changed again in early July 2018, when "I saw press reports stating that Brett Kavanaugh was on the shortlist of a list of very well-qualified Supreme Court nominees.” So she decided to come forward with her story.

    "I thought it was my civic duty to relay the information I had about Mr. Kavanaugh’s conduct so that those considering his nomination would know about this assault,” she said.

    Ford went public with her claim in a Sept. 16 Washington Post story.

    Dr. Randall said she does not believe that the door was just a pretext to hide a political motive.
    “Part of her trauma was feeling trapped, and that stayed with her,” she asserted.

    Randall, who specializes in sexuality, depression, anxiety and fears and phobias, says that Ford’s failure to tell anyone for some 30 years about the high school incident stemmed not from “repressed memory syndrome” but from the simple fact she was "15 years old at the time and couldn’t tell anyone about it.”

    “She didn’t want her parents to know she was drinking at a house without parents there,” Randall said. “There was a lot of shame involved.”

    But the far more recent story of the “second front door" also seemed to recede in Ford's memory banks, only to pop up after speculation about her political motives grew.

    She did not mention it in her original letter to Feinstein in July, or the statement she made for a polygraph exam in August, or a personal letter to Grassley last month. The tale of the door emerged, suddenly, on the eve of her testimony before Congress.
    https://www.realclearinvestigations....r_account.html





    Christine Blasey Ford ex-boyfriend says she helped friend prep for potential polygraph...





    Grassley sounds alarm. Renews request for polygraph info and therapy notes.








    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/chr...y-sounds-alarm







    Update Oct 1st:



    Julie Swetnick proves she is totally full of shit.


    WATCH: Kavanaugh Accuser Julie Swetnick Backtracks on Some Claims in Extensive NBC News Interview


    Julie Swetnick, the woman who accused Brett Kavanaugh of drugging women and participating in gang rapes in the 1980s, spoke out at length about her allegations in an interview that aired on MSNBC Monday.

    NBC News started off by noting it could not independently verify her claims. Swetnick spoke to NBC News correspondent Kate Snow about her allegations, made in a statement released last week, that Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge attended a party where she was drugged and gang raped. While she did not accuse Kavanaugh of assaulting her, she claimed she witnessed him participate in gang rapes. Kavanaugh has vehemently denied the allegations and denied even knowing Swetnick.

    Swetnick, a current government employee being represented by lawyer Michael Avenatti, told Snow that at parties Kavanaugh was “very aggressive, very sloppy drunk, very mean drunk.”

    “I saw him go up to girls and paw on them… touching them in private parts, try and shift clothing,” she claimed. “I saw him push girls against walls. He would pretend to stumble and stumble into them, push them into a wall. He would grope them.”

    NBC News noted there were differences in Swetnick’s initial statement and her comments to the outlet, notably her assertion that Kavanaugh spiked punch at the parties so that groups of boys could rape girls.
    Swetnick did not confirm that she saw Kavanaugh spike punch, but simply said she “saw him around the punch containers.”

    “I don’t know what he did,” she told NBC.

    She also appeared to backtrack on her suggestion that Kavanaugh was involved in gang rapes, saying she only saw him congregated with other boys outside of rooms. When Snow asked if she thought the boys were gathered in order to rape girls in the rooms, Swetnick replied “yes.”

    “It’s just too coincidental,” she said.

    She continued that she came to that realization when she was raped herself. She said her assault happened at a party at the hands of multiple boys after her drink was spiked. She said that while she did not know if Kavanaugh and Judge participated in her rape, they were at the party near her where she began to feel sick.

    She added that she contacted the police and told her mother about the alleged assault.
    https://www.mediaite.com/tv/watch-ka...ews-interview/






    Update Sept 30:




    Christine Ford's BS story about house remodeling and the second door. The house was remodeled in 2008, as previously reported with what the city permit records indicate, not in 2012 as she stated...

    She suddenly wanted a second front door thirty years after the alleged event?

    Also notice in the 2011 photos that the renovation also included an expansion of the house with the appearance of the new rooftops on the back part of the house...




    BREAKING: Christine Ford Caught in MAJOR LIE – Photos Prove House Updates Occurred Much Earlier Than Claims in Senate Testimony!


    The address has been widely reported online and the home was pictured in the local news.

    Dr. Christine Ford’s last minute accusations against squeaky-clean Judge Brett Kavanaugh stunned the political world.

    But Ford’s accusations were questioned when she provided no date, no location and all of the alleged witnesses, including her friend, denied the allegations.
    We now have information that shows Christine Ford lied about the entire story.

    In her testimony on Thursday, Dr. Ford stated that she put a second door on her house in 2012:


    Over the years, I told very, very few friends that I had this traumatic experience. I told my husband before we were married that I had experienced a sexual assault. I had never told the details to anyone — the specific details — until May 2012, during a couples counseling session.

    The reason this came up in counseling is that my husband and I had completed a very extensive, very long remodel of our home and I insisted on a second front door, an idea that he and others disagreed with and could not understand.

    In explaining why I wanted a second front door, I began to describe the assault in detail. I recall saying that the boy who assaulted me could someday be on the U.S. Supreme Court, and spoke a bit about his background at an elitist all-boys school in Bethesda, Maryland. My husband recalls that I named my attacker as Brett Kavanaugh.

    We now have proof that this was a lie — a major lie.
    This was the basis for the entire story she told the US Senate Judiciary Committee under oath — And this is a lie.

    Christine Ford perjured herself.
    The problem with Ford’s testimony is that the the second front door was built on their home long before that date.

    According to online queries and pictures of the property from as early as 2007, the house in question had two doors in the front since at least 2011 and probably earlier.

    Thanks to time stamps available on the Internet, we can determine roughly when the 2nd door was put in Dr. Ford’s house.

    A simple query of Palo Alto, CA building inspections of properties related to Dr. Ford and her husband result in an inspection in 2007. When you link on the same address on Zillow, you see that this house was last remodeled in 2008.

    Ford’s house in 2007 – there was only one door pictured.

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-...me-600x386.jpg


    Ford’s house in March 2011 – This clearly shows the second front door is already there.

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-...e--600x328.jpg


    Ford’s house in November 2011 – The second front door is there.

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-...me-600x309.jpg


    Here is the same address in 2015 — the same home where the protests took place last week.

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-...me-600x351.jpg


    Dr. Ford’s testimony does not add up for many reasons.

    This falsehood in her testimony about the timing of the remodeling projects on her home is not accurate.
    This is a national disgrace thanks to the eager Democrats and their conflicted witness Christine Ford.


    UPDATE: Christine Ford spoke about the second front door at least three times in her testimony.

    So in a new clip, she talks about it again here. She says the incident in the 1980’s is in her medical records twice: “The first time is in 2012 with my husband in couples therapy with the quibbling over the remodel”. Very much present tense, as in remodel happening at same time as couples therapy.
    Again, this is from her opening statements:

    “I had never told the details to anyone, the specific details, until May 2012, during a couples counseling session. The reason this came up in counseling is that my husband and I had completed a very extensive, very long remodel of our home, and I insisted on a second front door, an idea that he and others disagreed with and could not understand. In explaining why I wanted a second front door, I began to describe the assault in detail.”

    And then this clip with Dianne Feinstein during her testimony.

    “Our house does not look aesthetically pleasing from the curb.”

    This implied that currently, today, it does not look pleasing. But you can’t even see the 2nd front door anymore. Back in the November 2011 google map shot, they already had started putting up posts of the wooden wall, and the walkway and new flowerbeds are already in.

    DiFi asks “And do you have that second front door” – totally implying that she wants to know how the “quibble” with her husband turned out.

    The March 2011 picture shows the new door, and you can see that the remodel (new space) was in the back of the house; by comparing with 2007 photo, you can see the new roofline in the back. The November 2011 image shows the wood wall posts and new pathway in front of the new door area.
    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...ate-testimony/







    Update Sept 28:




    FORD CAUGHT IN MAJOR LIE? — City Remodeling Permits Show Project She Linked to Kavanaugh Was in 2008 NOT 2012


    Christine Blasey Ford told the US Senate Judiciary Committee that the memories of Brett Kavanaugh “first came up” when she went into counseling in 2012. In May 2012 Ford and her husband argued over her desire to add “a second front door” to their home. Ford told the committee on Thursday the desire for a second door was because Brett Kavanaugh made her “claustrophobic.”

    But there may have been something else…
    As Paul Sperry reported on Thursday night. The Palo Alto building permits were issued to Ford and her husband in 2008 — NOT 2012.

    Paul Sperry: Palo Alto bldg permit records raise questions about Ford’s testimony she completed an “extensive remodel” of home in 2012 & that this was seminal event that led her down path to coming out against Kavanaugh b/c she needed to add an escape door. Permit was issued in 2008.

    LIVE: Ford claims she's not "political" & that reason Kavanaugh first "came up in counseling" in May 2012 was that she & her husband argued over her desire to add "a second front door" to home b/c Kavanaugh had made her "claustrophobic." But there may have been something else …
    — Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) September 27, 2018

    BREAKING: Palo Alto bldg permit records raise questions about Ford's testimony she completed an “extensive remodel” of home in 2012 & that this was seminal event that led her down path to coming out against Kavanaugh b/c she needed to add an escape door. Permit was issued in 2008
    — Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) September 28, 2018

    More… Ford may have been talking about a addition that they rent out.
    she built an addition on the house that they rent out !!!!! not for safety I pulled the property tax records she even said they use for google interns been verified even shows renters that receive mail at that address
    — SHOP AMLA (@AmandaMillsLA) September 28, 2018

    Also, she has a second home in Santa Cruz that she never mentions. She and her husband bought it in 2007. I have the address.
    — Stephen Gnome (@stephengnome) September 28, 2018
    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...2008-not-2012/



    The ABA’s letter of recommendation for an FBI investigation was the work of one man, not approved by the ABA committee.






    Sept 28
    Senate Judiciary Committee Holds Vote on Kavanaugh







    Delays, delays... Senate vote pushed back to next Friday instead of Tuesday...



    Trump orders FBI to reopen background investigation into Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh in light of sex assault claim


    President Donald Trump said Friday that he had ordered the FBI to conduct a "supplemental investigation" into an allegation of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh.

    Trump said that the probe "must be limited in scope and completed in less than one week."

    White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders tweeted out Trump's statement Friday afternoon.

    Sanders' tweet came just hours after Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., called for a delay in Kavanaugh's final confirmation vote by up to a week to allow the FBI to investigate "credible" allegations of sexual misconduct against the Supreme Court nominee.

    The announcement is a dramatic concession from Trump, who had strongly endorsed Kavanaugh in the wake of the judge's incendiary testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee a day earlier.

    Testifying under oath before committee, a visibly furious and emotional Kavanaugh had denied Christine Blasey Ford's allegation that he sexually assaulted her in the early 1980s when they were teenagers.

    Ford had offered her first publicly spoken words about the alleged assault in the Senate hearing before Kavanaugh. She said an intoxicated Kavanaugh, with participation from his classmate Mark Judge, had held her down on a bed, covered her mouth and tried to disrobe her.

    Kavanaugh has repeatedly denied the allegation, and told the committee Thursday that "I've never sexually assaulted anyone."

    In a statement following Trump's decision, Ford's lawyer Debra Katz said that "a thorough FBI investigation is critical to developing all the relevant facts."

    Ford "welcomes this step in the process, and appreciates the efforts of Senators Flake, Murkowski, Manchin and Collins -- and all other senators who have supported an FBI investigation -- to ensure it is completed before the Senate votes on Judge Kavanaugh's nomination," Katz said. "No artificial limits as to time or scope should be imposed on this investigation."

    Minutes before Sanders' tweet, Kavanaugh released a statement through White House deputy press secretary Raj Shah on Friday:

    "Throughout this process, I've been interviewed by the FBI, I've done a number of "background" calls directly with the Senate, and yesterday, I answered questions under oath about every topic the Senators and their counsel asked me. I've done everything they have requested and will continue to cooperate."
    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/28/trum...vanaugh--.html




    Senate GOP agrees to one-week delay on Kavanaugh Supreme Court confirmation to allow for FBI probe


    Senate Republicans have agreed to delay a vote on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation for one week to allow for an FBI probe into allegations of sexual misconduct against the judge, according to a statement issued by the Senate Judiciary Committee Friday.

    The committee requested that the White House "instruct the FBI to conduct a supplemental FBI background investigation with respect to" Kavanaugh's nomination, the statement said.

    The president agreed in short order. In a tweet posted by White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders Friday afternoon, the president said had ordered a supplemental investigation that would be "limited in scope and completed in less than one week."

    The delay means that a floor vote on Kavanaugh's confirmation, which had been expected for Tuesday, could now happen three days later. Senators will move forward with a procedural vote expected Saturday.

    In a statement released by the White House Friday afternoon, Kavanaugh said he would "continue to cooperate."

    Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, R-Texas, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and a number of other Republicans huddled in McConnell's office Friday afternoon to discuss how to proceed on the confirmation following a call from a number of key senators to delay the vote.

    The president, who has stood by his nominee amid a turbulent confirmation process roiled by accusations of sexual abuse, said Friday that he would be "totally reliant" on Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa.

    "I'm going to rely on all of the people including Senator Grassley, who's doing a very good job," Trump said.

    The Judiciary Committee voted on Friday along party lines to advance Kavanaugh's nomination to the full Senate, but a dramatic last-minute speech from retiring Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., thrust the process into chaos.

    Flake, who earlier announced that he would vote "yes" on Kavanaugh's confirmation, said at the committee meeting that his floor vote would be contingent on an FBI probe. A number of other senators considered to be swing votes soon followed suit, with Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin signaling their support for Flake's proposal almost immediately.

    The delay follows an explosive, nearly nine-hour day of testimony before the Judiciary Committee Thursday from Kavanaugh and one of his accusers, Christine Blasey Ford. Ford has alleged that Kavanaugh attempted to rape her at a high school gathering that took place more than three decades ago. Kavanaugh has vehemently denied the accusation.

    The prospect of an FBI probe was contentiously debated at the hearing Thursday. The two top members of the committee sparred over the utility of such an inquiry — as well as if it could even be conducted.

    Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the committee, said an FBI probe would be "the best way to ensure a fair process to both Kavanaugh and Ford."

    In contrast, Grassley called Democratic demands for the FBI to get involved "consistent with their stated desires to obstruct the Kavanaugh nomination by any means necessary," and said he had "no authority to force an executive branch agency to conduct an investigation into a matter it considers to be closed."

    Ford and Kavanaugh themselves were split on whether the FBI should investigate. While Ford has pushed for the bureau to look into her claims, Kavanaugh has pushed back. He said he wants to do whatever the Judiciary Committee thinks is best.
    Kavanaugh responded emotionally Thursday when Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., pointed out to him that the FBI could conclude an inquiry in a matter of days.

    "Senator, do you know how long the last 10 days have been for us?" Kavanaugh said. "Every day is like an eternity."
    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/28/sena...fbi-probe.html







    Update Sept 27




    Lindsey Graham Blasts Democrat Senators









    Sept 27
    Brett Kavanaugh, Christine Ford testify before Senate











    Third Kavanaugh accuser, Julie Swetnick, gives first TV interview







    BOMBSHELL: Blasey-Ford's HS Yearbooks Brag of Drunken Promiscuity, '54 Sex Partners Before College'


    They didn't quite get it all scrubbed from cyberspace quickly enough. High School yearbooks from Holton Arms preparatory school (Bethesda, Maryland, 1982-1985) purportedly show Brett Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey-Ford as a wild party girl in a wild party era, with yearbook passages by classmates bragging of spending the night with adult men during "Beach Week" and enjoying male strippers in G-strings for "Sweet 16" birthday parties.

    Let the slut shaming allegations begin. As Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's rape accuser today pulls back from an invited offer for Senate testimony, (saying through her attorney that a Friday deadline set by Republicans is quote, "arbitrary,") the inevitable levy break of background information allegedly reveals Christine Blasey-Ford as a prolific high school party girl who is alleged to have bragged to a friend of having 54 sexual partners prior to college. If true, the emergence of five high school yearbooks from exclusive college preparatory school, Holton Arms (Bethesda, Maryland) destroys Blasey-Ford's self portrayal as an innocent coed "church mouse" taken advantage of by an aggressive sexual predator.

    Even summarizing the totality of what the yearbooks contain is difficult, given that it paints a picture of hedonistic, debauched teenage behavior in which Christine Blasey-Ford is alleged to have not only indulged but promoted and led as an acknowledged focal point of American Pie, or Animal House-style fraternizing with eager young men, often in (by Holton Arms classmates’ descriptions) alcohol-saturated social settings that left participants unable to recall exactly what had taken place. One excerpt from a yearbook entry detailed the philosophy of binge drinking to memory loss as a necessity of the Holton Arms party scene:

    "Although these parties are unforgettable, they are only a memory lapse for most, since loss of consciousness is often an integral part of the party scene. Nothing emerges but a vague feeling of intense enjoyment when one tries to recall them. We were probably, you know, really tired and all.”

    One friend, (identified briefly on social media) alleges Blasey-Ford (Holton Arms, Class of 1984) suffered no memory loss whatsoever in describing and bragging about her sexual conquests and paramours, identifying 54 sexual partners between her junior year of high school and enrollment in college. The social media post (below) claims Blasey-Ford previously allegedly admitted to being an alcoholic in high school and regretted, "being so easy," in high school. She is alleged to have told the best friend that she had 54 sexual partners between 11th grade and enrollment in college. The post also identified Blasey-Ford as a liberal activist with an obvious sensitivity to Supreme Court ideology, once writing on social media, "Scalia-types must be banned from law!"

    As quickly as the images began to emerge on social media Monday, Blasey-Ford’s supporters worked this week to scrub them or have them taken down from various outlets. The entries describe wild drunken romps with boys, binge drinking blackouts, birthday parties with male strippers and the benefits of passing out drunk to avoid guilt and shame of alleged sexual activity. On one yearbook page, a passage is dedicated to artful description of a “Sweet 16” birthday party for one Blasey-Ford, Holton Arms classmate, complete with a male stripper wearing a gold G-string and dancing to the delight of the obviously underage attendees:

    "The tenth grade taught us how to party also and Martha (redacted) usually provided the circumstances in which to do so. Celebrating her sweet sixteen or just the weekend. Martha managed to entertain her guests with her hospitality, her pool (after descummification), and her erotic male dancer, the latter in his gold G-string, being by far the most effective."

    "Martha managed to entertain her guests with her hospitality…and her erotic male dancer, the latter, in his gold G-string being by far the most effective."

    "While dancing in the middle of coastal Highway, Ann [redacted last name] and friends picked up some men who passed out in their apartment…"

    Multiple Holton Arms yearbook entries show racy images purported to be Blasey-Ford in evocative clothing and sensuous repose, including photos of three minors dressed provocatively in Playboy Bunny and French maid costumes. (Redacted photos are allegedly much racier.) The caption describes underage high school girls dancing seductively in the middle of a highway during "Beach Week," and then enticing some (adult?) men to come back to their apartment for binge drinking and a night of whatever libidinous fun might have transpired:

    "Beach week culminated the year for those of us lucky enough to go. With school and our minds in temporary recess, we were able to release all those troubling inhibitions of the past year. While dancing in the middle of coastal Highway, Ann [redacted last name] and friends picked up some men who passed out in their apartment…"

    Other passages hint at the dating habits and adventurous process of selecting boys for romantic interest and activity, indicating that some female members of the Holton Arms senior class preferred freshman and sop****re boys as their companions: “Other seniors preferred to expand their horizons and date younger men, usually sop****res, who could bring the vitality and freshness of innocence to a relationship.”

    It's not clear who began redacting the photos and entries and who spearheaded the scrubbing operation that became a race against independent outlets who snapped up the photos as soon as they became public knowledge.

    What is known is that Blasey-Ford avoided public revelation of her accusations until the conclusion of Kavanaugh's Senate Judiciary Committee hearings and now, shows no interest in meeting a Friday deadline to testify under oath to her allegation of sexual assault against him, which in context, even if it were true, seems one of the tamer things that might ever happened in her high school career in what public yearbook accounts reveal as a WASP-ish, elitist East Coast, upper crust bacchanal scene in the 1980's.

    Multiple reports Thursday (9/20/18) indicated that Blasey-Ford was demanding the meeting of undisclosed conditions to testifying before the U.S. Senate concerning her claims against Kavanaugh, and that her attorney had termed a Friday deadline for such testimony to be, "arbitrary."
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3689760/posts






    Two men tell Senate that they, not Kavanaugh, assaulted Ford


    Two men have come forward to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to claim that they are the ones who actually assaulted Christine Blasey Ford during a house party in 1982 — and not Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

    Republicans on the committee released a timeline of events late Wednesday, which included details about their interactions with the two men who admitted to the attacks.

    On Monday, the timeline recounts GOP staff members interviewing “a man who believes he, not Judge Kavanaugh, had the encounter with Dr. Ford in 1982.”

    The “encounter” refers to an episode in which Ford claims that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in the bedroom at a Maryland house party.

    They had a follow-up interview with that man, and he provided more detail about the assault.

    Then on Wednesday, the committee staff said they spoke with a second man who said he assaulted Ford in 1982.

    The committee did not release any more details about the men, or why both were coming forward with the claims.
    https://nypost.com/2018/09/27/two-me...ssaulted-ford/




    Hoax? Fifth accuser recants story of Kavanaugh boat assault


    If you blinked, you might have missed the so-called fifth accusation against Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, the one involving a boat in Rhode Island, which was recanted shortly after it surfaced.

    The Senate Judiciary Committee released a transcript Wednesday of a conference call in which Judge Kavanaugh was asked about an allegation raised by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island Democrat.

    Mr. Whitehouse informed the committee that a constituent contacted him Monday and told him that a close acquaintance “was sexually assaulted by two heavily inebriated men she referred to at the time as Brett and Mark” in August 1985 on a 36-foot boat in Newport, Rhode Island.

    The constituent said he and another man scuffled at the time with “Brett and Mark,” but it was not until this week that he “realized that one of the men was Brett Kavanaugh when he saw Kavanaugh’s high school yearbook photo on television over the weekend,” according to the transcript.

    In the Tuesday interview, Judge Kavanaugh emphatically denied the claim, as well as a fourth allegation stemming from an anonymous complaint to Sen. Cory Gardner, Colorado Republican, that accused the judge of shoving a woman drunkenly against a wall in 1989.

    “I was not in Newport, haven’t been on a boat in Newport. Not with Mark Judge on a boat, nor all those three things combined,” Judge Kavanaugh said. “This is just completely made up, or at least not me. I don’t know what they’re referring to.”

    The constituent’s name was redacted, but the committee staffer conducting the Kavanaugh interview enabled reporters to track down the Twitter account.

    The staffer read to Judge Kavanaugh two tweets that matched tweets by @JeffreyCatala16.

    The account, much of which included semi-coherent rants against President Trump calling him a “domestic terrorist” and “Bozo” and accused him of “manslaughter,” recanted the allegation Wednesday and apologized.




    “[T]o everyone who is going crazy about what I had said I have recanted because I have made a mistake and apologize for such mistake,” said the account with the location Tiverton, Rhode Island.

    Multiple news organizations reported the allegations after the transcript was released, while others said the Rhode Island account appeared to be a bot, or fake account.

    The account, which was started in June, identified the holder as a “Graphic Artist, Artist, photography and writer. Hippie, First Responder, Father and Grandpa and proud of it.”





    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-accuser-reca/






    Update Sept 26:



    Julie Swetnick has some skeletons in her closet...


    She was no longer working for the government as of 2014, and got hit with a 62,000$ judgment in 2015.







    She also had a man prosecuted in 1993 over harassing phone calls, but did not tell the police about being drugged and gang raped???







    And...







    Bonus round...

    EXCLUSIVE: Julie Swetnick Was Sued For Domestic Violence And Defamation According To Court Documents


    Brett Kavanaugh’s third accuser Julie Swetnick was sued in 2001 for domestic violence against the man Richard Vinneccy in Miami-Dade County, according to court records.

    Swetnick was also sued for defamation by the company Webtrends Corporation in 2000 according to court records.

    A background search of Swetnick reveals two liens, including a 2014 federal tax lien of $40,303. She also has a Comptroller of Maryland Annapolis lean for $62,821.03.

    Swetnick has sued the state of Maryland on repeated occasions.

    “She started out in the mid-to-late 90s working for American Airlines, Marriott, U.S. Office Products, and Webtrends Corporation,” according to Heavy. “She then worked for Merck, Sharp & Dohme in Brussels as a Webtrends professional services engineer from July 2005 to January 2006.”
    Julie Swetnick is listed as the defendant in a defamation lawsuit that Webtrends Corporation filed against her in 2000. It is now a closed case.
    https://bigleaguepolitics.com/exclus...stic-violence/




    Also, more inconsistency from Christine Ford...


    Ford’s Polygraph Presents Another Inconsistency In Who Attended Alleged Party


    Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s polygraph exam was released on Wednesday, and it reveals another inconsistency in her claim about an alleged assault by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

    In her handwritten statement included in her polygraph, Ford claims that there were “4 boys and a couple of girls at the party.”

    Ford claims that Kavanaugh pushed her into a bedroom, groped her and covered her mouth with his hand to prevent her from screaming at a party during high school. The party was alleged to have occurred in the early 1980s.

    Dr. Christine Ford’s hand written statement included in her polygraph says the party where the alleged assault by Kavanaugh occurred had “4 boys and a couple of girls.” In her original letter to Feinstein she said the gathering was her “and four others” pic.twitter.com/to4gz9Do80
    — Saagar Enjeti (@esaagar) September 26, 2018

    Ford’s claim that there were “4 boys and a couple of girls” at the party contradicts Ford and her lawyer’s other accounts of how many people were present.
    In her letter to Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Ford claimed that there were “four others” present.

    She also told The Washington Post that there were “four boys at the party” and two — Kavanaugh and his friend, Mark Judge — in the room where the assault allegedly occurred.

    Ford’s lawyer, Debra Katz, later told CNN that there were four guys and one other girl at the party. (RELATED: Kavanaugh Accuser’s Lawyer Adds Detail Omitted In Feinstein Letter)

    “She says that there were four guys there, these are high school students, as was she. There were four guys there. Were there any girls there that day?” CNN anchor Alisyn Camerota asked Katz on Sept. 17.

    “Yes, there was another girl at this party,” Katz replied.

    Since Ford’s allegations were first made public, there have been three different accounts of how many people were at the party she claims to have been assaulted at: four boys, four boys and one girl, and four boys and a couple of girls.

    Kavanaugh, Judge and two other alleged party attendees all say they do not recall the party in question or any assault.
    https://dailycaller.com/2018/09/26/f...sistent-party/





    Just like Christine Ford and Deborah Ramirez, Aventti's client Julie Swetnick also appears to be full of shit

    Seven Questions About the Avenatti/Swetnick Story


    Some questions raised by the charges brought by Michael Avenatti and his client Julie Swetnick:

    1. Given the seriousness of these allegations, why did Michael Avenatti and Julie Swetnick decline to go directly to the police?

    2. Likewise, why did Avenatti and Swetnick bypass the press? Did anyone in the press look into this story? What did they find? The New York Times confirms that “none of Ms. Swetnick’s claims could be independently corroborated by The New York Times, and her lawyer, Michael Avenatti, declined to make her available for an interview.” Why?

    3. Where are the witnesses? The charge is of gang rape. Leave aside the question of whether Brett Kavanaugh was involved — and forget for a moment that we’re debating whether he should be on the Supreme Court — surely there are a whole host of victims, perpetrators, and witnesses to this monstrous crime. Where are they?

    4. Is is not a little strange that there are only two details provided, and that they are happen to be public knowledge already? The two names given are Mark Judge’s and Brett Kavanaugh’s. The time given is “BEACH WEEK,” which is listed on the calendar that Brett Kavanaugh released this morning. Why is there nothing new?

    5. According to the New York Times, Swetnick left school in 1980, and then went on to college. Swetnick claims that she “attended at least 10 house parties in the Washington area from 1981 to 1983 where the two were present.” That means that, at the time of the alleged incident(s), she was between 18 and 20-years-old at the least, and that Kavanaugh and Judge were between 16 and 18 at the most. Why was she, an adult, attending high-school parties with minors?

    6. Kavanaugh says that he’s never heard of the accuser. Is there anyone who can testify to the contrary? If so, how did they meet? What relationship did Kavanaugh have with her school, Gaithersburg High? Swetnick claims that she “met Judge Kavanaugh and Mr. Judge in 1980 or 1981.” Why did she, an 18- or 19-year-old, start hanging out with Kavanaugh and Judge, who were 15 or 16, depending on the year?

    7. Why would an adult go repeatedly to parties at which minors were being gang raped, and, having figured out what was going on, resolve only to “avoid the punch”? Did Ms. Swetnick tell anybody what she had seen? Why did she keep going back?
    https://www.nationalreview.com/corne...wetnick-story/


    Julie Swetnick Is Third Woman to Accuse Brett Kavanaugh of Sexual Misconduct


    […..]


    She said she witnessed Judge Kavanaugh participating in some of the misconduct, including lining up outside a bedroom where “numerous boys” were “waiting for their ‘turn’ with a girl inside the room.” Ms. Swetnick said she was raped at one of the parties, and she believed she had been drugged.

    None of Ms. Swetnick’s claims could be independently corroborated by The New York Times, and her lawyer, Michael Avenatti, declined to make her available for an interview.


    […..]


    Unlike two other women who have accused Judge Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, one who attended college with him and another a sister high school to Georgetown Prep, Ms. Swetnick offered no explanation in her statement of how she came to attend the same parties, nor did she identify other people who could verify her account.


    […..]
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/26/u...kavenaugh.html




    New Accuser: Avenatti claims client was a "gang rape' victim by Judge and Kavanaugh.

    Claims she was drugged and gang raped, yet never filed a police report, never told her parents, never told a school adminstrator when it happened...

    Says she went to all the parties and saw Kavanaugh and Judge spiking the punch at every one. Kept on attending the parties, though...

    Says she stayed away from the punch, but still got drugged, though...


    Another totally legit accuser...










    Julie Swetnick Accuses Brett Kavanaugh Of Sexual Misconduct, Alleges He Was Present During 'Gang Rape'


    Michael Avenatti said Wednesday that Julie Swetnick is his client who’s accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, marking the third woman to come forward with claims against the Supreme Court nominee in just over a week.

    Below is my correspondence to Mr. Davis of moments ago, together with a sworn declaration from my client. We demand an immediate FBI investigation into the allegations. Under no circumstances should Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed absent a full and complete investigation. pic.twitter.com/QHbHBbbfbE
    — Michael Avenatti (@MichaelAvenatti) September 26, 2018

    Here is a picture of my client Julie Swetnick. She is courageous, brave and honest. We ask that her privacy and that of her family be respected. pic.twitter.com/auuSeHm5s0
    — Michael Avenatti (@MichaelAvenatti) September 26, 2018

    In a sworn declaration, Swetnick — a Washington, D.C., resident — said she was a “victim of one of these ‘gang’ or ‘train’ rapes where Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh were present” at a party in Washington D.C., in approximately 1982.

    “During the incident, I was incapacitated without my consent and unable to fight off the boys raping me,” she wrote, noting that she shared what happened with “at least two other people” shortly after the incident. “I believe I was drugged using Quaaludes or something similar placed in what I was drinking.”

    Swetnick said she first met Kavanaugh and Judge, a classmate of Kavanaugh’s who came to the nominee’s defense, around 1980-1981. She described the two as “extremely close friends” who were “joined at the hip.”

    She said she attended “well over ten house parties” from 1981-1983. Between 1981-1982, she said at these parties she began to notice Judge, Kavanaugh and others would attempt to “‘spike’ the ‘punch’ at house parties I attended with drugs and/or grain alcohol so as to cause girls to lose their inhibitions and their ability to say ‘No.’”

    Kavanaugh and Judge, she said, would “‘target’ particular girls … it was usually a girl that was especially vulnerable because she was alone at the party or shy.” She said she has a “firm recollection” of seeing boys ― including Judge and Kavanaugh ― “lined up outside rooms at many of these parties waiting for their ‘turn’ with a girl inside the room.”
    HuffPost has not independently corroborated these claims.

    Representatives for both Kavanaugh and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

    Avenatti, who also represents the adult film star Stormy Daniels, first said in a tweet Sunday that he had a new client with “credible information” regarding Kavanaugh and Judge.

    The newest allegation comes days after Deborah Ramirez, in an interview with The New Yorker that was published Sunday, claimed Kavanaugh exposed himself to her and thrust his ***** in her face during a party when they were both students at Yale University in the 1980s. Kavanaugh has vehemently denied the claims.

    In an interview with Fox News’ Martha MacCallum on Monday, Kavanaugh denied the sexual assault allegations against him, and said he was not going “to let false accusations drive us out of this process.”

    “We’re talking about allegations of sexual assault. I have never sexually assaulted anyone,” Kavanaugh told Fox News. “I did not have sexual intercourse, or anything close to sexual intercourse, in high school or many years thereafter.”

    .@marthamaccallum joined #TheFive to discuss her exclusive interview with Judge Brett Kavanaugh and his wife, airing tonight at 7p ET on Fox News Channel. https://t.co/QFmLfIwW4Rpic.twitter.com/QzymMZa2KV
    — Fox News (@FoxNews) September 24, 2018
    Avenatti has repeatedly called for Kavanaugh’s nomination to be withdrawn.

    “We don’t need to be putting someone like that on Supreme Court for life,” he said during remarks at a launch party for newly formed political action committee “OMG WTF” last week in Los Angeles.

    The lawyer also told Chris Cuomo earlier this month that there are “other individuals that are more qualified than this judge to sit on the Supreme Court and his [Kavanaugh’s] nomination should be pulled.”

    Avenatti has made a name for himself as Daniels’ lawyer. He has not ruled out a potential presidential run in 2020, making appearances at the Iowa State Fair and a Democratic Party picnic in New Hampshire earlier this year.

    The White House has remained steadfast in its support of Kavanaugh, and on Sunday, officials said the latest allegations were part of a “coordinated smear campaign.”
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/julie-swe...145917533.html





    Christine Ford's story is not holding up.

    In other words, she's full of shit


    Eight big problems for Christine Blasey Ford’s story


    Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations against Brett Kavanaugh are serious. She is accusing him of violent attempted rape. “I thought he might inadvertently kill me. He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing,” she told The Washington Post, recounting the alleged incident at a high school party “one summer in the early 1980s.”

    But her story is also growing less believable by the day. Here are eight reasons why it’s hardly “anti-woman” for senators to question her account at Thursday’s hearing:

    1) For starters, Ford still can’t recall basic details of what she says was the most traumatic event in her life. Not where the “assault” took place — she’s not sure whose house it was, or even what street it was on. Nor when — she’s not even sure of the year, let alone the day and month.

    Ford’s not certain how old she was or what grade she was in when she says an older student violently molested her. (But she doesn’t plead inebriation: She described having just “one beer” at the party.)

    2) Ford concedes she told no one what happened to her at the time, not even her best friend or mother. That means she can rely on no contemporaneous witness to corroborate her story.

    3) Worse, the four other people she identified as attending the party, including Kavanaugh, all deny knowledge of the gathering in question, including Leland Ingham Keyser, who she calls a “lifelong friend.”

    Keyser’s lawyer told the Senate Judiciary Committee: “Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with or without Dr. Ford.”

    The other two potential witnesses — Mark Judge and Patrick “P.J.” Smyth — also deny any recollection of attending such a party. The committee took their sworn statements “under penalty of perjury.” “These witnesses directly contradict Professor Ford’s allegations against Judge Kavanaugh,” Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley advised Ford’s attorneys last week.

    In her original letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Ford claimed that Kavanaugh talked to Keyser and Smyth right after he assaulted her. Yet neither shares her memory.

    This is, to say the least, highly problematic for her case. No witness corroborates any part of her story.

    4) Her own immediate family doesn’t appear to be backing her up, either. Her mother, father and two siblings are all conspicuously absent from a letter of support released by a dozen relatives, mostly on her husband’s side of the family.

    The letter attests to her honesty and integrity. “Why didn’t her parents and brothers sign the letter?” a congressional source familiar with the investigation wondered.

    5) This summer, Ford tried to reach out to old friends from high school and college to jog her memory. They couldn’t help her. “I’ve been trying to forget this all my life, and now I’m supposed to remember every little detail,” Ford complained to one friend in July, according to an account in The San Jose Mercury News.

    6) Yet she still pushed forward with her bombshell charge, contacting The Washington Post tip line and Democratic lawmakers, while hiring a Democratic activist lawyer. Ford is also a Democrat, as well as an anti-Trump marcher, raising questions about the motive and timing of the allegations along with their veracity.

    7) Ford contends that notes her therapist took in 2012 corroborate her account. But they don’t mention Kavanaugh.
    They also point up inconsistencies in her story. For instance, her shrink noted that Ford told her there were “four boys” in the bedroom, not two as she now says. The notes also indicate Ford said she was in her “late teens” when she was assaulted. But Ford now says she may have been only 15.

    8) In another inconsistency, Ford told The Washington Post she was upset when Trump won in 2016, because Kavanaugh was mentioned as a Supreme Court pick. But Kavanaugh wasn’t added to Trump’s list of possibles until November 2017, a full year later.

    On top of all that, Kavanaugh “unequivocally denied Dr. Ford’s allegations . . . under penalty of perjury” during a Sept. 17 interview with committee lawyers, Grassley said, adding he was “forthright and emphatic in his testimony” and “fully answered all questions.”

    The sworn interview will no doubt be used to test the consistency and veracity of his public statements Thursday.

    Yet Democrats have already tried and convicted Kavanaugh of sexual assault. Without hard evidence, without substantiation, some even go beyond Ford’s claims to call him an out-and-out “rapist,” “sexual predator,” even a “child predator.”

    As a result, Kavanaugh and his family, “including his two young daughters, have faced serious death threats and vicious assaults,” Grassley said. “And they’re getting worse each day.”

    Ford, who also has received threats, is by all accounts a respected scientific researcher in the field of psychology with an impressive pedigree. While that makes her credible, the same can’t be said for her story. Unless she can fill in the many holes, Kavanaugh still deserves the presumption of innocence.
    https://nypost.com/2018/09/25/eight-...y-fords-story/




    GOP hires female attorney to question Ford, Kavanaugh's accuser


    Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans said Tuesday that they had hired an outside attorney to question Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford, who has accused him of sexually assaulting her, at the committee's hearing on Thursday.

    For several hours after the announcement, they would not reveal the lawyer's identity — only her gender — drawing criticism from Democrats and women's advocates. Late Tuesday night, they revealed that Rachel Mitchell, an experienced sex crimes prosecutor in Maricopa County, Arizona, would be serving as nomination investigative counsel.

    "The goal is to de-politicize the process and get to the truth, instead of grandstanding and giving senators an opportunity to launch their presidential campaigns," Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said in a statement. "I’m very appreciative that Rachel Mitchell has stepped forward to serve in this important and serious role."

    Still, Mitchell's hire does address a political need for the majority. Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., who is not on the committee, said Tuesday it would not be wise for Republican senators on the panel — all of whom are men — to ask questions themselves during the hearing. "Somebody will do something that you guys will run 24/7 and inadvertently somebody will do something that’s insensitive," he told reporters. "I would not be wanting to ask questions about something like this. I’m glad they're going to get outside counsel."

    Asked by NBC's Kasie Hunt Tuesday what message it sends to the nation that the entire GOP side of the panel lacks women, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said, "We're looking for the truth here. I don't think because you happen to be a male you're disqualified from listening to evidence — from listening to the evidence and making a decision based upon the evidence."

    […..]
    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/con...anders-n912866





    Update Sept 25:



    Senate panel schedules Kavanaugh vote for Friday


    The move comes after Republicans hire a female attorney to question Kavanaugh's accuser.

    The Senate Judiciary Committee will vote on Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court on Friday morning, fewer than 24 hours after Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford appear before the panel to discuss Ford's allegation that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her more than 30 years ago.

    According to committee rules, Judiciary must schedule a committee vote three days in advance. But the committee said the vote will only proceed if a "majority of the members" of the 21-member committee are ready to vote on Friday.

    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) can bring Kavanaugh to the floor whether the nominee gets a favorable or unfavorable recommendation. Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) is undecided on Kavanaugh's nomination and is the key swing vote on the panel; Flake has not voted in the Senate this week and has not commented on his current thinking about Kavanaugh.

    “For Republicans to schedule a Friday vote on Brett Kavanaugh today, two days before Dr. Blasey Ford has had a chance to tell her story, is outrageous," said Sen Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the committee's ranking member. “First Republicans demanded Dr. Blasey Ford testify immediately. Now Republicans don’t even need to hear her before they move ahead with a vote."

    Senate Republicans hired a female attorney to use as a questioner of Ford at Thursday's high-stakes hearing on a sexual assault allegation against Kavanaugh but are declining to release her name.

    Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) told POLITICO on Tuesday that "we aren't announcing the name for her safety."

    Asked if Republicans have received any indication of threats to the attorney they're preparing to use, Grassley said: "I don’t know, but I guess we’re just being cautious."

    Republicans say only Grassley knows the identity of the new counsel and isn’t telling anyone. The GOP’s secrecy immediately came under fire from Senate Democrats, who mockingly pointed out that all 11 Republicans on the Judiciary Committee are men.

    “No one can find that out, it’s a mystery,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Tuesday afternoon of the questioner. “It’s interesting that our Republican colleagues, who want to rush this [nomination] through, are afraid to question Dr. Ford themselves and have to put a surrogate there.”

    The back-and-forth over the GOP’s female counsel was part of a day of bitter partisan sniping as both sides prepared for Thursday’s blockbuster hearing. And it could get only more heated. As the committee pressed ahead with a vote on Kavanaugh, an attorney representing Deborah Ramirez charged that Republicans on the panel "have refused to meet all scheduled appointments" to discuss her allegation against the judge further.

    "Ms. Ramirez is ready to swear to the FBI under penalty of perjury. Why won’t the Senate Judiciary Committee welcome that?" Colorado-based attorney John Clune tweeted on Tuesday.

    President Donald Trump and White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders began the day by angrily lashing out at Feinstein and other Democrats over their handling of the Ford allegations. Schumer responded by attacking Kavanaugh’s credibility, suggesting the federal appeals court judge may have lied during his confirmation hearings.

    The stakes couldn't be higher for Kavanaugh, the future of the Supreme Court, and both parties as they head into the midterm elections. Republicans, though, clearly have more to lose. A failure to get Kavanaugh’s nomination through the Senate confirmation process would bring heavy criticism from Trump and the conservative base, and would leave Republicans scrambling to push through a different nominee during a lame-duck session, which carries big political risks.

    With that in mind, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) – described by one Republican as “fired up” – was already warning his colleagues that he would keep the Senate in all weekend in order to have a final confirmation vote on Kavanaugh by early next week. The new Supreme Court term starts on Oct. 1.

    “I’m confident we’re going to win, I’m confident that he will be confirmed in the very near future,” McConnell told reporters on Tuesday.

    […..]
    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...instein-838942






    Senate eyes Kavanaugh vote next week


    Senate Republicans are eyeing a vote on the floor on Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination next week.

    Senators, while coming out of a closed-door caucus lunch, acknowledged the situation remains fluid, but said they expected to be in session through the weekend to run out the procedural clock, a move that would allow them to wrap up Kavanaugh’s nomination next week.

    GOP Sen. John Cornyn (Texas), the No. 2 GOP senator and member of leadership, told reporters that if Kavanaugh could get out of the Judiciary Committee on Friday they would be able to be done with the nomination "by the first part of next week.”

    "We need to have a mark up and my hope would be we could have that mark up as early as Friday and be on the floor this weekend," Cornyn told reporters.

    Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) said he was planning to be around until Tuesday to finish Kavanaugh’s nomination.

    “If you plan to do something before next Tuesday I wouldn’t plan on it,” Isakson said.

    GOP Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) initially told reporters that a vote could happen on Tuesday. He later hedged after the lunch saying it depends on how much Democrats drag out the procedural clock.

    If the Judiciary Committee sent Kavanaugh's nomination to the full Senate on Friday, that would allow Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to file cloture as early as Saturday and hold an initial vote as early as Monday.

    McConnell did not give a specific timeline on Kavanaugh’s nomination during a weekly press conference only saying they would vote in the near future.

    "I believe he'll be confirmed, yes," he told reporters.
    No schedule on Kavanaugh’s nomination has been formally announced beyond a Thursday hearing where Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford, a woman accusing him of sexual assault, are scheduled to testify before the Judiciary Committee.

    Cornyn told reporters Monday evening that it was possible a committee vote could happen by Friday. If the Judiciary Committee wants to vote on Friday, committee chairman Chuck Grassley’s (R-Iowa) staff would have to notice the vote on Tuesday.

    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) expressed confidence that the Senate would confirm Kavanaugh.

    “We’re going to be moving forward. I’m confident we’re going to win, confident that he’ll be confirmed in the very near future,” McConnell told reporters.

    McConnell did not specify when Kavanaugh's nomination will come to the Senate floor, except that they would take it up in the "near future."

    A GOP aide, asked about the Tuesday vote timeline, stressed that a final decision had not been made but to not make weekend plans.

    Senators discussed strategy for Kavanaugh during their closed-door lunch.

    Grassley told his colleagues at the lunch to prepare to be in session this weekend, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) told reporters.

    Cornyn, asked if Grassley specifically said to plan to be in session during the weekend, quipped: "I'm telling you."

    "We're going to be here this weekend," he added.
    Several other senators said that a final decision had not been made but that they expect to be in session to try to run out the procedural clock on Kavanaugh's nomination over the weekend.

    "I'll be here. ... I think that it's going to be pretty hard to move this along without having votes on certainly Friday and Saturday," GOP Sen. Orrin Hatch (Utah) told reporters.

    GOP Sen. John Kennedy (La.) asked about the weekend told reporters, "I think we are going to be in session."

    The decision to move forward with Kavanaugh's nomination comes even as he appears short of the simple majority support needed to be confirmed.

    GOP Sen. Jeff Flake (Ariz.) has yet to say if he will support Kavanaugh's nomination or the Judiciary Committee voting this week on the nomination.

    If he voted against the nomination in committee it would leave Kavanaugh without the simple majority support needed to be confirmed.

    Cornyn said leadership is in constant communication with Flake, who has not voted this week, but added that he hadn't yet heard demands for more time between a hearing and a vote.

    Kavanaugh would need a simple majority to be confirmed by the full Senate.

    In addition to Flake, GOP Sens. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Susan Collins (Maine) remain undecided and aren't expected to make a decision until Thursday's hearing.
    https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...-for-kavanaugh




    Is Christine Ford starting to hesitate?
    Senate wants to bring in a female experienced sex crimes prosecutor to do the questionning, instead of “old white men”, and that’s a problem for Ford?
    No, when you try to ruin someone’s career and reputation, you better be ready to answer some strong questions.


    Hearing in Doubt? Christine Ford’s Lawyer Rips Senate Plan to Have Prosecutor Ask Questions: Not ‘Fair and Respectful’


    Dr. Christine Blasey Ford‘s legal team has sent a letter (which can be seen below via NBC’s Frank Thorp) to the Senate Judiciary Committee amid continuous negotiations ahead of Thursday’s scheduled hearing.



    In the letter addressed to Sen. Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Ford’s legal team cites Sen. Majority Leader’s Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) speech on the Senate floor on Monday afternoon as “flatly inconsistent” with Grassley’s promise of a “fair and credible process.”

    “In our view, the hiring of an unnamed ‘experienced sex crimes prosecutor’ as Mr. Davis described in his email, is contrary to the Majority’s repeated emphasis on the need for the Senate and this Committee’s members to fulfill their constitutional obligations,” attorney Michael Bromwich wrote. “It is also inconsistent with your stated wish to avoid a ‘circus,’ as well as Dr. Blasey Ford’s repeated requests through counsel that senators conduct the questioning. This is not a criminal trial for which the involvement of an experienced sex crimes prosecutor would be appropriate.”

    Ford’s team requested the identity of the sex crimes prosecutors the Committee would invite to the hearing along with their resumes.

    The letter also blasts the the White House’s refusal to order an FBI investigation into Ford’s allegation.

    “The hearing plan that Mr. Davis described does not appear designed to provide Dr. Blasey Ford with fair and respectful treatment,” Bromwich said.
    https://www.mediaite.com/online/hear...nd-respectful/





    Update Sept 24:




    Exclusive Fox Interview With Brett Kavanaugh







    Kavanaugh's Letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee



    Kavanaugh: 'I will not be intimidated into withdrawing'


    Brett Kavanaugh on Monday said he will "not be intimidated into withdrawing" from his Supreme Court nomination after a second woman came forward with a sexual misconduct allegation against him.

    Kavanaugh sent a letter on Monday to Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) — the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, respectively — saying the accusations against him are "smears, pure and simple."

    "They debase our public discourse. But they are also a threat to any man or woman who wishes to serve our country. Such grotesque and obvious character assassination—if allowed to succeed—will dissuade competent and good people of all political persuasions from service," Kavanaugh said in the letter to Grassley and Feinstein.

    "I will not be intimidated into withdrawing from this process. The coordinated effort to destroy my good name will not drive me out. The vile threats of violence against my family will not drive me out. The last-minute character assassination will not succeed," Kavanaugh continued.

    His letter to Grassley comes after The New Yorker reported that Senate Democrats are investigating a sexual misconduct allegation dating back to Kavanaugh’s freshman year at Yale University.

    Deborah Ramirez says Kavanaugh exposed himself in front of her during a dorm party at Yale. She told The New Yorker that Kavanaugh thrust his ***** in her face, causing her to touch it without her consent when she pushed him away.

    Kavanaugh was already facing a sexual assault allegation from Christine Blasey Ford, who says that at a high school party in the early 1980s Kavanaugh pinned her down to a bed and tried to remove her clothing.

    Kavanaugh and Ford are both scheduled to testify before the Judiciary Committee on Thursday. Kavanaugh has denied wrongdoing.

    Republicans and the White House are lining up behind Kavanaugh, signaling that they are publicly preparing for a fight over his nomination.

    Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said the New Yorker piece was a "smear campaign." Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), meanwhile, said Democrats are engaged in "wholesale character assassination."
    https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...to-withdrawing



    Brett Kavanaugh, wife Ashley speak out on Supreme Court nomination controversy in Fox News exclusive







    Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump's pick for the Supreme Court, and his wife, Ashley, are speaking out to Fox News in an exclusive interview Monday on the sexual misconduct accusations that have threatened to derail his confirmation.

    The interview is set to air at 7 p.m. ET on "The Story" with Martha MacCallum.

    Kavanaugh addressed the allegations, categorically denied the incidents ever happened and said he would not withdraw his name from consideration.

    Kavanaugh and accuser Christine Blasey Ford are set to testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday. She said he covered her mouth and tried to remove her clothing at a party in the early 1980s, when both were teenagers.

    In a New Yorker story published Sunday night, Deborah Ramirez said he exposed himself to her while they were students at Yale.

    Kavanaugh told Fox News he's looking forward to clearing his name at Thursday’s hearing. The couple also spoke about the threats being made against their family, saying their lives are now in danger.

    Top Republicans include Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., have slammed what they described as a "smear campaign" orchestrated in part by Democrats. Meantime, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, has asked for the Kavanaugh nomination to be halted while the FBI investigates the allegations.
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...exclusive.html



    Mitch McConnell SLAMS Orchestrated Smear Campaign Against Kavanaugh 9/24/18









    Update Sept 23:


    Third Woman?

    New tweets by Avenatti the lying Creepy **** Lawyer.

    Circus goes on...










    Second woman, Deborah Ramirez, apparently joining the smear campaign, trying to further delay Kavanaugh’s appointment. She was also drunk at a party...


    Senate Democrats Investigate a New Allegation of Sexual Misconduct, from Brett Kavanaugh’s College Years


    As Senate Republicans press for a swift vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Senate Democrats are investigating a new allegation of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh. The claim dates to the 1983-84 academic school year, when Kavanaugh was a freshman at Yale University. The offices of at least four Democratic senators have received information about the allegation, and at least two have begun investigating it. Senior Republican staffers also learned of the allegation last week and, in conversations with The New Yorker, expressed concern about its potential impact on Kavanaugh’s nomination. Soon after, Senate Republicans issued renewed calls to accelerate the timing of a committee vote. The Democratic Senate offices reviewing the allegations believe that they merit further investigation. “This is another serious, credible, and disturbing allegation against Brett Kavanagh. It should be fully investigated,” Senator Mazie Hirono, of Hawaii, said. An aide in one of the other Senate offices added, “These allegations seem credible, and we’re taking them very seriously. If established, they’re clearly disqualifying.”

    The woman at the center of the story, Deborah Ramirez, who is fifty-three, attended Yale with Kavanaugh, where she studied sociology and psychology. Later, she spent years working for an organization that supports victims of domestic violence. The New Yorker contacted Ramirez after learning of her possible involvement in an incident involving Kavanaugh. The allegation was also conveyed to Democratic senators by a civil-rights lawyer. For Ramirez, the sudden attention has been unwelcome, and prompted difficult choices. She was at first hesitant to speak publicly, partly because her memories contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident. In her initial conversations with The New Yorker, she was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty. After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections to say that she remembers Kavanaugh had exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his ***** in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away. Ramirez is now calling for the F.B.I. to investigate Kavanaugh’s role in the incident. “I would think an F.B.I. investigation would be warranted,” she said.

    [.....]
    https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...eborah-ramirez





    Update Sept 22:



    All of Ford's named witnesses of the party, both male and female, have now denied any recollection of attending such a party.
    https://www.weeklystandard.com/john-...with-Kavanaugh



    Third Named Witness Rejects Kavanaugh’s Accuser’s Allegations.

    That moment when even one of your childhood friends say that you’re full of shit...

    Senate Judiciary Committee contacts Ford's friend about party


    As the Senate Judiciary Committee staff negotiates with attorneys for Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of a past sexual assault, over a potential hearing on Thursday, Republican staffers are working to interview those who may have information about the alleged incident.

    CNN has learned that the committee has reached out to a longtime friend of Ford named Leland Ingham Keyser.

    On Saturday night, her lawyer, Howard Walsh, released a statement to CNN and the Senate Judiciary Committee.

    "Simply put," Walsh said, "Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford."

    The lawyer acknowledged to CNN that Keyser is a lifelong friend of Ford's.

    Keyser is the latest person alleged to be at the party to say she has no recollection of it.

    "I understand that you have been identified as an individual who was in attendance at a party that occurred circa 1982 described in a recent Washington Post article," a committee staffer wrote Keyser earlier this week.

    Kavanaugh has vehemently denied the allegations, telling sources he was "flabbergasted" when he learned of them.

    "This is a completely and totally false allegation," he said after Ford came forward. "I have never done anything like what the accuser describes — to her or to anyone."

    In addition, two others have issued statements.

    "I have no memory of this alleged incident," said Mark Judge in a September 18 letter sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee. He said he did not recall the party and never saw Brett Kavanaugh act in the matter Ford describes.

    In addition, Patrick J. Smyth issued a statement. "I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as 'PJ' who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post," Smyth said in his statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee. "I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh."

    "Personally speaking, I have known Brett Kavanaugh since high school and I know him to be a person of great integrity, a great friend, and I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh towards women. To safeguard my own privacy and anonymity, I respectfully request that the Committee accept this statement in response to any inquiry the Committee may have."
    https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/22/polit...ion/index.html



    Christine Ford is willing to testify.

    But, she has certain conditions and...

    Now Ford suddenly has a fear of flying? This is nothing but another attempt to delay Kavanaugh's appointment. Christine Ford is full of shit, and hopefully all of this is going to backfire hard on her and the Dems.






    Poking a Hole in Professor Ford's 'Fear of Flying' Excuse


    Last night's 10:00 pm deadline for Christine Blasey Ford’s team to agree to come to testify came and went, and unfortunately, Senator Chuck Grassley has given her yet another extension—until 2:30 pm ET today—to reach an agreement.

    Personally, I don’t think Ford has any intention of testifying, and I don’t believe Democrats actually want her to either. Ford’s demands have been crazy and absurd, and the entire negotiation circus feels more like a stalling tactic than a negotiation in good faith on Ford and her team’s part.

    One of her recent excuses was based on the claim that she couldn’t possibly make it to the hearing in time because Ford has a fear of flying (aviophobia) and would have to drive. Now, let’s put aside the fact that Republicans have literally offered to come out to California to accommodate her, and look into this claim. According to a report from ABC News, we get the following nugget of information.

    Meantime lawyers for Ford are asking the Senate Judiciary Committee to schedule a hearing for her to be heard on Thursday, allowing time for Ford to make the drive from California to Washington D.C. Ford's friend, Kate Devarney, told CNN this week that Ford's fear of flying is directly related to her allegation of assault, and that an airplane is "the ultimate closed space where you cannot get away."

    Isn’t that convenient? Not only does she have a fear of flying, but she’s basically claiming the alleged attack caused it. An interesting detail likely included to evoke sympathy and make it more difficult for people to question.

    But, attributing the flying phobia to the attack is curious. Prior reports have only indicated that the alleged assault primarily impacted her ability to have healthy relationships with men—Ford first brought up the assault in couples therapy in 2012.

    Years later, after going through psychotherapy, Ford said, she came to understand the incident as a trauma with lasting impact on her life.

    “I think it derailed me substantially for four or five years,” she said. She said she struggled academically and socially and was unable to have healthy relationships with men. “I was very ill-equipped to forge those kinds of relationships.”

    She also said she believes that in the longer term, it contributed to anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms with which she has struggled.

    One could argue that “anxiety” could cover a fear of flying, but a fear of flying (or confined spaces in general) for 35 years seems like an incredibly debilitating phobia that seems likely to have been called out specifically prior to this new fear of flying claim. Has Ford, for example, been unable to ride in an elevator for 35 years? Assaults in elevators are certainly more common than assaults on airplanes. Further, Ford herself went to a private all-girls prep school. Her family must have been fairly well-to-do, and probably went on expensive vacations more than once during her teen years. If she suddenly developed a fear of flying because of the attack, are we expected to believe her family didn’t notice she suddenly couldn't join them on a family vacation? Is it possible they never flew to go on vacation? Sure, but I consider that unlikely.

    But, let's give Ford the benefit of the doubt. Let's assume her family never went on vacation together requiring her to fly after the alleged assault, and concede that she may, in fact, have had a genuine fear of flying for the past 35 years. Well, clearly The New York Times didn’t get the memo. This was written in a profile of Ford on September 19th:

    Dr. Blasey developed a passion for surfing, which she shares with her husband and two sons. “She’s been chasing waves,” said Beth Stannard, a friend and former co-worker, who said Dr. Blasey’s decisions to teach at Pepperdine, in Malibu, Calif., and to complete an internship at the University of Hawaii were at least partly informed by the campuses’ seaside locations. She and her family live in Palo Alto — where she has volunteered for her sons’ schools and junior lifeguard training, has restored her midcentury modern home with an eye toward historical preservation, and has attended Stanford football and basketball games with her family. The family also has a house in Santa Cruz, famed for its beaches and breaks.

    Did Ford swim to Hawaii for that internship? Did she ride a pontoon? Are we expected to believe she took a boat?

    There are only two possible conclusions here: Either she's lying about the phobia, or can (and has) successfully managed it with medication. Both conclusions here don't reflect well on Ford's credibility.

    The bottom line here is that there is enough reason to believe that Ford’s claim of aviophobia was just another stall tactic, that Ford has no genuine desire to testify, and likely, Senate Democrats don’t want her to testify either. We’re being thrown all sorts of excuses that are either absurd (like her crazy demands for the hearing) or don’t hold up under scrutiny, like this fear of flying excuse. Grassley shouldn’t have given Ford this latest extension. We’ve been getting bogus stalling tactics for a week now. It’s time to stop the circus and confirm Kavanaugh now.
    https://pjmedia.com/trending/poking-...flying-excuse/



    That is ridiculous. They keep moving the deadlines more than the UN.
    They're giving here a chance to tell her story under oath. She's been in contact with her lawyer for over a month regarding this. If she keeps on delaying, the Republicans need to grab their balls and move on from this BS.

    Grassley agrees to give Ford more time to decide on Senate testimony


    Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley agreed late Friday night to allow the woman who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault more time to decide whether to testify before Congress.

    Grassley tweeted that he "granted another extension" to Christine Blasey Ford, saying "she (should) decide so we can move on. I want to hear her."




    The Senate Judiciary Committee has given Ford's attorneys a deadline of 2:30 p.m. ET Saturday to respond with their decision, a committee source confirmed to CNN.

    The panel has proposed holding a hearing next Wednesday in which it would hear testimony from both Kavanaugh and Ford, according to a source with knowledge of the matter.

    Kavanaugh has denied the sexual assault allegation.

    The committee earlier Friday had set a deadline of 5 p.m. ET for Ford to decide, later extending that to 10 p.m. In response, Debra Katz, who is representing Ford, wrote in a letter to the committee that its "cavalier treatment of a sexual assault survivor who has been doing her best to cooperate with the Committee is completely inappropriate."

    Calling the deadline arbitrary, Katz wrote in a letter that "our modest request is that she be given an additional day to make her decision."
    Had Ford's lawyers not responded to the proposal or if Ford decided not to testify by the deadline, Grassley said, the committee would vote on Kavanaugh's nomination Monday.

    Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, accused Republicans of "bullying a survivor of attempted rape in order to confirm a nominee" by saying they will vote Monday on the nomination if they don't reach an agreement with Ford and her lawyers for her to testify.

    "It's clear that Republicans have learned nothing over the last 27 years. Bullying a survivor of attempted rape in order to confirm a nominee — particularly at a time when she's receiving death threats — is an extreme abuse of power," Feinstein said in a statement. "I'm shocked and appalled by the Republicans' refusal to wait 24 hours for a hearing and instead rush forward with a vote on Monday. From the outset Republicans have tried to push through this nomination at all costs."

    Max Young, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, said, "At approximately 2:30 Republicans sent her a proposal and gave her a 5 p.m. deadline. Shortly after they wrote her, she responded and said I need 24 hours to talk to my client. At 6:30 they gave her a 10 p.m. deadline. ... At this point, the Senate has shown significantly more deference to Facebook and Google's hearing-scheduling requests than to Ford's."

    Ford's lawyers said Thursday night that Ford wouldn't be able to get to Washington before next Thursday because of all that her family is dealing with, according to a Senate Democratic leadership aide.

    The proposed hearing, according to three sources, would include an outside counsel who would ask questions. The proposal calls for Ford to testify first and Kavanaugh second.

    The order of testimonies is the opposite of what Ford, through her lawyers, has requested, according to a senior congressional source.
    Another source told CNN that Republicans are dealing with internal disagreements about whether they should use an outside counsel. Multiple senior members of the committee are pushing for one, while others are less interested, according to the source, making it unclear whether this will make it into the final proposal to Ford.

    Her lawyers previously suggested that the committee's senators question their client, not an outside counsel.

    A Senate Republican aide told CNN Friday that a special counsel would prevent the politicization of Ford's questioning.

    "Senate Democrats rightly said that the Senate should not bully Dr. Ford ... the way to depoliticize that and ensure that is with an outside counsel," they said.

    But the use of an outside counsel is receiving pushback from Senate Democrats. An aide to a member of the Senate's Democratic leadership told CNN that, "outside counsel doesn't vote on Kavanaugh. Senators do. Republicans need to do their jobs and not hide."

    Ford also requested that at no point during any potential hearing would she be in the same room as Kavanaugh.
    https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/21/polit...ing/index.html





    Update Sept 21:


    Grassley needs to tell them to go fuck themselves and proceed with the vote...

    They want a damn CSI investigation over whether the bitch had her boobs grabbed as a teenager at a high school party that took place over 35 years ago? Are they mad?

    Perhaps she shouldn't have been underage drinking, and have more responsible parents.


    Ford requests another day before Kavanaugh testimony decision, blasts GOP's response


    Lawyers for Christine Blasey Ford are asking for an additional day to consider whether she will testify against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and blasted Republicans for "cavalier treatment of a sexual assault survivor."

    An attorney for Ford, who accused Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her when they were teenagers, said Friday evening in a letter obtained by USA TODAY that Republicans have created "tremendous and unwarranted anxiety and stress" on her by rushing the decision on whether she will testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee and requested more time to examine the terms of her testimony.

    "Your cavalier treatment of a sexual assault survivor who has been doing her best to cooperate with the Committee is completely inappropriate," Debra Katz, an attorney for Ford wrote to the committee leadership staff Friday evening.

    Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-IA, gave Ford and her attorneys a strict 10 p.m. deadline Friday to respond to the terms of her testimony and threatened to call for a vote Monday on Kavanaugh's confirmation if an agreement wasn't made.

    "It’s Friday night and nothing’s been agreed to despite our extensive efforts to make testimony possible," Grassley said. "In the event that we can come to a reasonable resolution as I’ve been seeking all week, then I will postpone the committee vote to accommodate her testimony. We cannot continue to delay."
    But Ford and her attorneys say the rush has put an added burden on her. On Friday, Ford spent part of her day with the FBI reporting the threats she's received after coming forward with accusations that Kavanaugh held her down and tried to take off her clothes at a party when they were both in high school.
    Kavanaugh has denied the accusation.

    "The 10:00 p.m. deadline is arbitrary. Its sole purpose is to bully Dr. Ford and deprive her of the ability to make a considered decision that has life-altering implications for her and her family," Katz wrote. "She has already been forced out of her home and continues to be subjected to harassment, hate mail, and death threats. Our modest request is that she be given an additional day to make her decision."

    Grassley has already placed Kavanaugh's confirmation vote on Monday's agenda. It's unclear whether he will grant Ford and her attorneys another day to consider whether she will offer testimony to the committee.
    But, it appears, the contentious back-and-forth is not over yet.

    Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee and attorneys for Ford have for days discussed the terms of Ford's testimony.

    Ford offered a list of 10 demands, Grassley said, and the committee was willing to meet "halfway," calling some of her demands "unreasonable."

    Republicans have offered Ford time to testify in front of the panel Wednesday, a day earlier than she requested, but a delay from Monday's scheduled hearing. They insist that she speak first, against her wishes, so that Kavanaugh can defend himself after her allegation is aired. But they agreed to her requests for security measures and that Kavanaugh be out of the room when she testifies.

    Still unresolved is who will conduct the questioning. Grassley said Friday evening that the committee will "reserve the option to have female staff attorneys" also question Ford. The committee, though, has not officially announced whether it will elect that option, which would save the panel's 11 Republican men from the optics of questioning a woman claiming sexual assault.

    The committee also declined to subpoena Mark Judge, a friend of Kavanaugh who Ford says witnesses the assault, and others. "The Committee does not take subpoena requests from witnesses as a condition of their testimony," a letter from the committee to Ford's attorneys states.

    Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Committee, fired back at Grassley's threat of a Monday voteand the strict deadline, calling it "bullying" of a sexual assault survivor.

    "Bullying a survivor of attempted rape in order to confirm a nominee—particularly at a time when she’s receiving death threats—is an extreme abuse of power," she said. "I’m shocked and appalled by the Republicans’ refusal to wait 24 hours for a hearing and instead rush forward with a vote on Monday."

    Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island, a member of the Judiciary Committee, criticized the “counteroffer” and emphasized that senators, rather than committee counsel, must be able to question both witnesses.
    "I will not forfeit my ability to question Judge Kavanaugh and anyone else who comes before the committee with testimony, no matter how uncomfortable it may make the 11 men across the dais," he said, referring to the panel's Republican members.

    All 10 Democrats on the Committee wrote a letter to Grassley saying "the Committee majority’s treatment of Dr. Ford has unquestionably been worse than the disgraceful treatment that Anita Hill received 27 years ago." Hill accused now-Justice Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment in 1991 and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle were criticized for their handling of the situation.

    The Democrats called for more witnesses than just Ford and Kavanaugh, including the FBI, Kavanaugh's friend who Ford alleges was in the room, character witnesses and outside experts.
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...gh/1381399002/



    Trump drops civil tone, slams Kavanaugh accuser credibility


    Abandoning his previous restraint, President Donald Trump challenged by name the woman accusing his Supreme Court nominee of sexual assault on Friday, declaring that if the alleged attack was so terrible she would have reported it to law enforcement.

    Trump’s change in tone — and apparent shift in tactics — came as Christine Blasey Ford’s lawyers negotiate with the Senate Judiciary Committee on the terms for her possible testimony next week in a dramatic showdown over her accusation that threatens Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

    Trump tweeted: “I have no doubt that, if the attack on Dr. Ford was as bad as she says, charges would have been immediately filed with local Law Enforcement Authorities by either her or her loving parents. I ask that she bring those filings forward so that we can learn date, time, and place!”

    The president previously had avoided naming Ford or plainly casting doubt on her account. Ford alleges Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her more than 30 years ago when they were teenagers. Kavanaugh has denied the allegation.

    The accusation has jarred the 53-year-old conservative jurist’s prospects for winning confirmation, which until Ford’s emergence last week had seemed all but certain. It has also bloomed into a broader clash over whether women alleging abuse are taken seriously by men and how both political parties address such claims with the advent of the #MeToo movement — a theme that could echo in this November’s elections for control of Congress.

    In another tweet, Trump, who was in Las Vegas for various events, wrote: “Judge Brett Kavanaugh is a fine man, with an impeccable reputation, who is under assault by radical left wing politicians who don’t want to know the answers, they just want to destroy and delay. Facts don’t matter. I go through this with them every single day in D.C.”

    Ford is willing to tell her story — but only if agreement can be reached on “terms that are fair and which ensure her safety,” her lawyer said Thursday. She said Ford needs time to make sure her family is secure, prepare her testimony and travel to Washington.

    Attorney Debra Katz said anew that Ford, 51, a psychology professor in California, has received death threats and for safety reasons has relocated her family.

    Negotiations over the terms of her testimony are continuing. The discussions have revived the possibility that the panel will hold an electrifying campaign-season hearing at which both Ford and Kavanaugh can give their versions of what did or didn’t happen at a party in the 1980s.

    Ford’s preference is to testify to the panel next Thursday and she doesn’t want Kavanaugh in the same room, her attorney told the panel’s staff in a 30-minute call that also touched on security concerns and others issues, according to a Senate aide. That aide wasn’t authorized to discuss the matter publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

    In addition to security, expected to be provided by Capitol Police, Ford has asked for press coverage of her testimony to be the same as for Kavanaugh.
    Reporters had assigned seating and were kept separated from the nominee, who was whisked to and from the room.

    Ford’s attorney said Ford would like to testify first, but that might be complicated because Kavanaugh has already agreed to Monday’s scheduled hearing.

    Ford has told the panel she would prefer the committee not use outside counsel to question her because that would make it seem too much like a trial, the attorney told the panel. All of the Republicans on the panel are men, and the committee is known to be concerned about the optics of having questions from the GOP side come only from men.

    Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has scheduled a hearing for Monday morning, and he and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., have indicated it would be Ford’s only chance to make her case. Republicans are anxious to move ahead to a vote by the committee, where they hold an 11-10 majority, and then by the full Senate, which they control, 51-49.

    Taylor Foy, spokesman for Republicans on the panel, said that Grassley “will consult with his colleagues on the committee. He remains committed to providing a fair forum for both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh.”

    Ford has asked the committee to subpoena Mark Judge, who Ford has said was in the room at the time of the alleged incident. Judge has told the committee he does not recall the incident and does not want to speak publicly.

    Kavanaugh, meanwhile, has said he was ready to appear Monday.

    “I will be there,” he wrote Grassley in a letter. “I continue to want a hearing as soon as possible, so that I can clear my name.” Kavanaugh was seen at the White House on Thursday.

    Trump, who had been careful in recent days not to criticize Ford as he defends his nominee, told Fox News host Sean Hannity Thursday that he feels the nomination has been delayed long enough.

    “I think it’s a very sad situation,” he said, asking, “Why didn’t somebody call the FBI 36 years ago? ... What’s going on?”

    He said Kavanaugh’s accuser should “have her say and let’s see how it all works out, but I don’t think you can delay it any longer. They’ve delayed it a week already.”

    At a Las Vegas rally not long after, Trump praised Kavanaugh as “one of the finest human beings you will ever have the privilege of knowing or meeting” and called his reputation “impeccable.”

    Ford has contended that at a house party in a Maryland suburb of Washington, a drunken Kavanaugh tried undressing her and stifling her cries on a bed before she fled.

    As the week has proceeded, Republicans have seemed to regain momentum toward approving Kavanaugh though his prospects have remained uncertain.

    Even moderate Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said it would be “unfair” to Kavanaugh if Ford decides to not appear, and others were urging leaders to proceed quickly to a vote. Still, the bare 51-49 Republican majority means they can lose just one vote and still approve him if all Democrats vote no. Vice President Mike Pence would break a tie.

    Democrats have tried using the issue to demonstrate that Republicans treat women unfairly, their eyes on upcoming elections in which suburban, anti-Trump female voters could be pivotal in many races. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., a possible 2020 presidential candidate, said Republicans were “bullying” Ford by giving her a Monday deadline to testify.

    Republicans have resisted all Democratic efforts to slow and perhaps block Kavanaugh’s confirmation. A substantial delay could push confirmation past the November elections, when Democrats have a shot at winning Senate control, plus allow more time for unforeseen problems to crop up.
    https://apnews.com/8f5fc89473d8429f9...'s-accuser






    Update Sept 20:



    BREAKING: FORMER SCALIA LAW CLERK Drops Pictures and Evidence That Blows Christine Ford’s Case Wide Open





    Is this a case of mistaken identity?
    Accuser Christine Blasey Ford is waging a war on Trump’s SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh with decades-old, unsubstantiated claims of sexual assault in an effort to derail his confirmation to the Supreme Court.

    Judge Kavanaugh has categorically denied the allegations and even told Senator Orin Hatch he wasn’t at the party in question.

    Ed Whelan, Justice Scalia’s former law clerk and president of conservative think tank the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC), came out in defense of Brett Kavanaugh and said compelling evidence will come out next week exonerating Kavanaugh.

    On Thursday afternoon, Ed Whelan started dropping pictures and evidence that may blow Christine Ford’s case wide open.

    The “Maryland suburban home”–the scene of the alleged sexual assault described by Christine Ford to WaPo as being ‘not too far from the Columbia Country Club’ may have belonged to Kavanaugh’s friend named Chris Garrett.

    Follow this thread by Whelan…

    Dr. Ford may well have been the victim of a severe sexual assault by someone 36 years ago. Her allegations are so vague as to such basic matters as when and where that it is impossible for Judge Kavanaugh to *prove* his innocence.
    — Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) September 20, 2018

    But there are compelling reasons to believe his categorical denial. Let’s look at one set of reasons.
    — Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) September 20, 2018

    According to Ford’s letter, the assault occurred “in a suburban Maryland area home at a gathering that included me and four others.” Her WaPo account adds that the house was “not far from” the Columbia Country Club.
    — Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) September 20, 2018

    The “four others” that she and her lawyer have identified are Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, P.J. Smyth, and a female classmate of Ford’s. None of the four lived in the vicinity of the Columbia Country Club.
    — Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) September 20, 2018

    Kavanaugh’s home was 3.6 miles away; Smyth’s 4.3 miles; Judge’s 10 miles; and the female classmate’s 7 miles.
    — Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) September 20, 2018

    Here is a map of the homes in relation to Columbia Country Club. pic.twitter.com/0pXSbSxb49
    — Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) September 20, 2018

    Here is a house that is barely a half-mile from the Columbia Country Club. Street address: 3714 Thornapple Street, Chevy Chase. pic.twitter.com/RgRdv0gzyQ
    — Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) September 20, 2018

    The floor plan corresponds closely to Ford’s description of the house where the gathering took place. Here’s the “short stair well” (part of a U-shaped staircase with landing) running up from the foyer next to the living room. pic.twitter.com/jEceJiiHNk
    — Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) September 20, 2018

    Who lived in this house? Chris Garrett, a Georgetown Prep classmate, friend, and football teammate of Brett Kavanaugh’s.

    Who lived in this house? Chris Garrett, a Georgetown Prep classmate, friend, and football teammate of Brett Kavanaugh’s. pic.twitter.com/lJYf7zCLQj
    — Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) September 20, 2018

    Garrett and Kavanaugh looked a lot alike in high school.
    Folks who knew both Kavanaugh and Garrett in high school have commented on how much they resembled each other in appearance. Here are Kavanaugh and Garrett in their senior yearbook photos. pic.twitter.com/9VmLL3zNq9
    — Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) September 20, 2018

    Here they are now…
    And here are Kavanaugh and Garrett now. pic.twitter.com/Yi9iI1yRHH
    — Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) September 20, 2018

    Ed Whelan went on to say, “If you’re at a gathering of “four others” in someone’s home, you’d ordinarily think that the four others include the host who lives in the home. And that host would be the person least likely to act like a guest and most likely to use private areas of the house.”

    “If the gathering was at Garrett’s house and Garrett was there, then one of the “four others” wasn’t there.” Whelan continued.

    Ed Whelan concluded his tweetstorm saying, “To be clear, I have no idea what, if anything, did or did not happen in that bedroom at the top of the stairs, and I therefore do not state, imply or insinuate that Garrett or anyone else committed the sexual assault that Ford alleges. Further, if Ford is now mistakenly remembering Garrett to be Kavanaugh, I offer no view whether that mistaken remembrance dates from the gathering or developed at some point in the intervening years.”

    Bottom line: I believe that a fair assessment of this evidence powerfully supports Judge Kavanaugh’s categorical denial.
    — Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) September 20, 2018

    Feinstein is refusing to give Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley the unredacted letter Christine Ford sent Senate Democrats in July further fueling suspicions there is exculpatory evidence in the letter.
    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...ase-wide-open/




    Grassley sets Friday deadline for Trump top court pick Kavanaugh's accuser


    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A woman who has accused Brett Kavanaugh, President Donald Trump’s U.S. Supreme Court nominee, of sexually assaulting her decades ago has until Friday morning to provide prepared testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, the panel’s chairman said on Wednesday.

    The committee has invited Ford and Kavanaugh to testify on Monday about the allegation. Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, in a letter to the lawyers for university professor Christine Blasey Ford, also said the committee would be willing to hold the hearing behind closed doors rather than in a public session, adding that he was disturbed to hear that Ford has been subjected to personal threats.

    Kavanaugh has denied the assault allegation.
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1LZ2GJ





    Update Sept 18:

    (Anita Hill anyone?)


    The Kavanaugh accuser wants the FBI to investigate a groping allegation from a high school party that took place over 35 years ago??? And she is not even willing to testify under oath? Is she being serious? This is a pathetic joke.


    Kavanaugh’s accuser wants FBI probe before she testifies


    Christine Blasey Ford wants the FBI to investigate her allegation that she was sexually assaulted by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh before she testifies at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing next week, her lawyers said in a letter sent Tuesday to the panel.

    The lawyers wrote that Ford, who is now a college professor in California, wants to cooperate with the committee. But in the days since she publicly accused Kavanaugh of the assault when they were teens at a party 35 years ago, the lawyers said, she has been the target of “vicious harassment and even death threats.” Her family has relocated, they said.

    An FBI investigation “should be the first step in addressing the allegations,” the lawyers wrote in the letter, which was obtained by The Associated Press.

    The development comes after President Donald Trump showered sympathy on his embattled nominee and as Senate Republicans and Democrats fought determinedly over who should testify at a high-stakes hearing on the allegation just six weeks before major congressional elections.

    Trump has already rejected the idea of bringing in the FBI to reopen its background check of Kavanaugh. Should he order such a review, it would likely delay a confirmation vote until after the election. Republicans hope to have Kavanaugh confirmed by Oct. 1, the start of the next Supreme Court term.

    Meanwhile, Republicans are suggesting that Ford, whose allegations have upended Kavanaugh’s nomination — the committee’s vote was already pushed from Thursday to likely next week — will have one chance to testify, and one chance only.

    “Monday is her opportunity,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Tuesday, a line that was echoed by other Republicans throughout the day.

    McConnell expressed confidence that Kavanaugh would be confirmed. “I’m not concerned about tanking the nomination,” he said.

    The GOP chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, said an FBI investigation wouldn’t have bearing on Ford’s testimony so “there is no reason for further delay.”

    Grassley said the committee offered Ford “the opportunity to share her story” in a public or a private hearing, or staff interviews, “whichever makes her most comfortable. The invitation for Monday still stands.”

    Said Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, a key Republican on the panel, said, “We should proceed as planned.”

    The furious jockeying over Ford’s testimony underscores the political potency so close to an election that will decide control of both the House and Senate, not to mention the confirmation of a conservative justice likely to serve on the high court for decades.

    Democrats complain that Ford was not consulted before the hearing was announced. They also want more witnesses besides Kavanaugh and Ford, hoping to avoid what they said would turn into a “he-said-she-said” moment.

    The lawyers for Ford predicted the hearing, as now scheduled, “would include interrogation by senators who appear to have made up their minds” that she is “mistaken” and mixed up.

    But Democrats also said Tuesday they were planning to attend the hearing even if Ford did not show up.
    Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said he had “a lot of questions” for Kavanaugh. “A simple denial is not the end of questioning.”

    As Democrats press for more time to investigate, Republicans have been careful to say that Ford should have her chance to speak, and they have stressed that they are willing to move Monday’s hearing behind closed doors, if she prefers.

    “Were planning on a hearing Monday. It can be open. It can be closed, whatever Ms. Ford wants,” said Sen. John Kennedy, a member of the Judiciary panel from Louisiana. “We’re ready to hear anything she has to say. I am, anyway, and I think most of us are.”

    GOP Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee — among a handful of Republicans who insisted on hearing from Ford before voting — said it would be a “shame” if Ford didn’t show up to testify. But he suggested Republicans will not bend from their offer of a hearing Monday.

    “That would be quite something if she decided she did not want to testify,” Corker said. “I’d assume the committee would then move on as they should.”

    One witness the Democrats want to hear from is Kavanaugh’s high school friend Mark Judge, who Ford said was in the room when she was assaulted. Kavanaugh has denied Ford’s allegation, and Judge says he doesn’t remember any such thing. “More to the point, I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes,” Judge said in a letter to the panel.

    The risks of a public hearing starring the all-male lineup of Republicans on the committee could be high. Republicans said late Tuesday they were considering hiring outside attorneys, presumably including women, to question the witnesses. But that may be moot if Ford declines to appear.

    Kavanaugh, 53, was at the White House on Tuesday for a second straight day, but again did not meet with Trump. The president said he was “totally supporting” Kavanaugh and felt “terribly” for him and his family.

    “I feel so badly for him that he’s going through this, to be honest with you, I feel so badly for him,” said Trump, who has himself faced numerous accusations of sexual harassment that he’s denied. “This is not a man that deserves this.”

    The No. 2 Senate Republican leader, John Cornyn of Texas, noted that Ford has admitted she doesn’t remember some details of the incident. He called the allegations a “drive-by attack” on the judge’s character.

    “There are gaps in her memory,” Cornyn said. “She doesn’t know how she got there, when it was and so that would logically be something where she would get questions.”

    Criticism like that fed a Democratic narrative that the GOP’s handling of Ford could jeopardize that party’s election prospects in the age of #MeToo, the response to sexual abuse that has torched the careers of prominent men.

    “Now this is really what #MeToo is all about, if you think about it,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the top Judiciary Committee Democrat. “That’s sort of the first thing that happens, it’s the woman’s fault. And it is not the woman’s fault.”

    Meanwhile, Kavanaugh has been calling Republican senators, including Kennedy, who said the nominee was committed to moving forward.

    “He’s not happy, he’s upset,” Kennedy said. “He said very clearly and unequivocally, ‘This did not happen.’”

    Ford went public with her story Sunday, telling The Washington Post that Kavanaugh had forced himself on her in a bedroom at a party when he was 17 and she was 15, attempting to remove her clothes and clapping his hand over her mouth when she tried to scream. She says she escaped when Judge jumped on the bed.
    https://apnews.com/b3aacc95f5f74cf5a...-she-testifies



    Debra Katz, the attorney for the woman accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, said that it is not her client’s job to corroborate her claims.




    Katz said on CNN on Monday that investigators should be responsible for proving Christine Blasey Ford’s claim that Kavanaugh held her down and drunkenly groped her while at a party in high school.

    During the interview, Katz revealed that there was another girl present at the party, which allegedly took place in 1982 while Kavanaugh was attending Georgetown Prep. Ford previously told the Washington Post that there were four boys at the party but never indicated if there were other girls beside herself.

    “While we have you, perhaps you can help us fill in the blanks on some of her story. She says that she was at a party in probably 1982 in Montgomery County, Maryland. She says that there were four guys there, these are high school students, as was she. There were four guys there. Were there any girls there that day?” anchor Alisyn Camerota asked.

    “Yes, there was another girl at this party, yes,” Katz said.

    Camerota asked if Ford has tried to talk to any of the other partygoers to see if they will corroborate her story, but Katz declined to place the burden of proof on her client.

    “That’s not her job to do that. If this is going to be investigated, it should be done by investigators,” Katz asserted.
    http://dailycaller.com/2018/09/17/ka...r-corroborate/





    Day 4







    Day 3





    ‘Spartacus’ Cory Booker ‘Broke Rules’ to Release Emails Already Cleared for Publication


    Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) made a great show of breaking Senate rules on Thursday to release “committee confidential” emails regarding Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh — but the emails had reportedly already been cleared for release.

    Booker, referring to himself as Spartacus — i.e. the slave who led a revolt in ancient Rome, and sacrifices himself in the Hollywood film version of the story — defiantly dared the Senate to oust him for breaking the rules of confidentiality.

    The emails he released included an exchange in which Kavanaugh advised the Bush administration to use “race-neutral” policies in airport security — though Booker spun them to suggest Republicans were trying to keep the emails hidden because of the references to race, implying that Kavanaugh had made racially derogatory or offensive comments in the emails.

    Later Thursday, Shannon Bream of Fox News reported that the emails had already been cleared for release by the committee at 4:00 a.m. EDT Thursday morning, after Democratic Senators on the committee belatedly asked chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) to make them public.

    It is not clear whether Booker knew the documents had already been cleared for release. Other senators, notably Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), rebuked Booker for what they appeared to believe at the time was a violation of the rules. Cornyn called it “conduct unbecoming of a senator.”

    Update: Fox News reported that Booker’s office had been informed that the documents had been cleared before the hearing.

    Cornyn told Fox News that he had only learned from Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) after his exchange with Booker that the documents had already been cleared.
    “All of this drama this morning was apparently for nothing, and it’s unfortunate,” he concluded.
    https://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...r-publication/





    Day 2







    Day 1




    What Joe Biden said about the FBI's role in such a case:


    40
    Yes
    82.50%
    33
    No
    17.50%
    7

    The poll is expired.

    Last edited by Vlad_; 10-08-2018, 06:10 PM.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Originally posted by Vlad_ View Post
    Democrats are desperate to keep Kavanaugh out.


    Lol they can make all the noise they want.

    Comment

    • #3
      Whiny protesters and Democrats make for good comedy

      Comment

      • #4
        America's Bolshevik party is going all out to disrupt this Republic.

        Comment

        • #5
          Originally posted by Build That Wall View Post
          Whiny protesters and Democrats make for good comedy
          Winning is so much better with sore losers.

          Comment

          • #6
            Straight up mobsters. These lefties and their brown shirts had better realize this isn’t Nazi Germany or some banana republic.

            Comment

            • #7
              Bug-eyed Booker sounds like every typical fear-mongering, race card playing member of the "resistance". If you take him at his word, you'd think women and people of color would be relegated to second class citizens in America when Kavanaugh becomes a justice. Between the Democrats frivolously opposing Kavanaugh (solely because Trump chose him) and the unhinged theatrics displayed today, what are these idiot leftists trying to achieve?

              Comment

              • #8
                The comedy will continue tomorrow.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Remember Democrats and liberals were going on about a blue wave for the mid-terms? Sane Americans see this crap will be turned off.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Theodore View Post
                    Remember Democrats and liberals were going on about a blue wave for the mid-terms? Sane Americans see this crap will be turned off.
                    I agree they are throwing **** against the wall. From his aid flashing KKK signs to him being unfair.

                    Comment

                    Previous 1 2 3 4 11 51 101 245 template Next
                    Working...
                    X
                    TOP

                    Sign In

                    Forgot password?

                    Register

                    Get in on the latest boxing conversations in our Forum and comment on articles.
                    JOIN NOW