SEPTEMBER 24, 2018 SPECIAL

NEWS AND VIEWS

ROD ROSENSTEIN RESIGNATION – NEWS VIDEO
https://www.cbsnews.com/live/video/20180924144924-report-rod-rosenstein-resigning-as-deputy-attorney-general/?ftag=CNM15cf32c
Report: Rod Rosenstein resigning, DURATION 13:20

HERE IS ANOTHER ODD BIT OF INFORMATION, WHICH THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE STIRS UP IN MY MEMORY. IF FEINSTEIN’S RECEIPT AND REVELATION OF THE FORD LETTER OCCURRED IN 2018 AS I UNDERSTOOD FROM ALL THE NEWS REPORTS THIS LAST SEVERAL MONTHS TO BE THE CASE; AND IF THIS SUPPOSEDLY JOKING COMMENT WAS MADE IN 2015 (“AMID AN ALLEGATION THAT HE SEXUALLY ASSAULTED A GIRL WHEN HE WAS A HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT” USA TODAY SAYS), SURELY THAT THROWS OFF THE TIME SYNCH OR ALTERNATIVELY, KAVANAUGH’S KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACCUSATION OR MAYBE HIS MEMORY OF THE EVENT. THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THAT KAVANAUGH’S BACKGROUND WAS EXAMINED FOR A POTENTIAL JUDGESHIP – WHEN HE WAS MADE A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN WASHINGTON DC. IS THE CONTEXT MISREPORTED BY USATODAY? VERY LIKELY, BUT WHAT REALLY HAPPENED AND WHEN? I KNOW. ANOTHER CONSPIRACY THEORY OF MY OWN, BUT AT LEAST I OPENLY ACKNOWLEDGE IT AS A THEORY.

IN ADDITION, ANOTHER STORY I SAW SEVERAL WEEKS AGO STATED THAT TRUMP DID NOT COME UP WITH KAVANAUGH’S NAME ON HIS OWN. IT WAS GIVEN TO HIM BY A CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN SOURCE. HE HAD A LIST OF PROPOSED NOMINEES TO (SUPPOSEDLY) CHOOSE FROM, AND NAMED INSTEAD KAVANAUGH, OUT OF THE BLUE. THAT COULD IMPLY A REPUBLICAN CONTROL IN OPERATION ON THE TRUMP ASCENSION TO THE PRESIDENCY BACK AS FAR AS 2015, WHEN THAT PARTY WAS APPARENTLY MALICIOUSLY AND CORRUPTLY BLOCKING PRESIDENT OBAMA’S NOMINATION OF SUPREME COURT JUSTICE TO REPLACE THE RETIRING JUSTICE ---. TO ME, THAT COULD MEAN THAT FACTIONS IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HAD BEEN INVOLVED WITH THE DONALD TRUMP COUP LONG AGO, AND POSSIBLY THEREFORE WITH THE RUSSIAN INVOLVEMENT AND THE MERCILESS SMEARING OF HILLARY CLINTON. THE ONLY THING THAT IS MISSING IN THIS MYSTERY IS A MURDER.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/09/19/brett-kavanaugh-georgetown-prep-joke/1355117002/
ON POLITICS NEWSLETTER
'What happens at Georgetown Prep, stays at Georgetown Prep,' Kavanaugh joked in 2015
William Cummings, USA TODAY Published 7:47 a.m. ET Sept. 19, 2018 | Updated 12:29 p.m. ET Sept. 19, 2018

VIDEO -- President Donald Trump says Democrats are using allegations of sexual assault to delay the confirmation of his Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh. USA TODAY

WASHINGTON – Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is facing criticism for a joke he made about his high school in 2015, amid an allegation that he sexually assaulted a girl when he was a high school student.

"What happens at Georgetown Prep, stays at Georgetown Prep," Kavanaugh joked during a speech at the Catholic University's Columbus School of Law in Washington.

Kavanaugh said three of his good friends from Georgetown Preparatory School, who he remained close with, went to Columbus. He praised the law school for gearing its students to care about the poor and underprivileged and instilling a sense of service, which reminded him of his high school's motto, "Be men for others."

And he then said he remembered another unofficial motto from his time at the school.

"But fortunately, we had a good saying that we've held firm to, to this day, as the dean was reminding me before the talk, which is, 'What happens at Georgetown Prep, stays at Georgetown Prep,' " Kavanaugh said, drawing a few laughs. "That's been a good thing for all of us, I think."

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., shared a clip of Kavanaugh making the joke in a tweet on Tuesday.

"I can't imagine any parent accepting this view. Is this really what America wants in its next Supreme Court Justice?" she wrote.


Elizabeth Warren
✔
@SenWarren
Brett Kavanaugh talking about his high school in 2015: “What happens at Georgetown Prep, stays at Georgetown Prep.”

I can't imagine any parent accepting this view. Is this really what America wants in its next Supreme Court Justice?

48.4K
4:23 PM - Sep 18, 2018
27.8K people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Some conservatives said that by editing out the references to his friends, Warren makes Kavanaugh's remark look more like an admission of bad behavior than a joke.

The full video can be seen here. (The section in question begins at about the 4:50 mark.)

Palo Alto University psychology professor Christine Blasey Ford alleges that Kavanaugh and another Georgetown Prep student, Mark Judge, locked her in a room during a party in 1982. She says Kavanaugh then held her down, covered her mouth and tried to remove her clothes in what her lawyer has called an "attempted rape."

'Uncontrollable male passion': Writings of Brett Kavanaugh's classmate under scrutiny

More: Who is Christine Blasey Ford, the professor accusing Brett Kavanaugh of assault?

Kavanaugh has vehemently denied the allegation and Judge has also disputed Ford's account.

The Senate Judiciary Committee asked both Kavanaugh and Ford to testify about the matter next week. Ford's lawyer, Debra Katz, said that her client wasn't "prepared to talk" until the FBI has investigated the alleged incident.


THE MORE I READ, THE SADDER IT GETS. MEN AND THEIR SEXUAL “NEEDS” ARE, INSTEAD OF BEING SOMETHING THAT WOMEN SHARE TOO; SHOULD BE SOMETHING WHICH WE MUST BOTH MANAGE WITH SOME THOUGHTFULNESS. A GUY GETTING DRUNK AND PRESENTING HIS PENIS BEFORE A WOMAN IN THIS SICK MANNER IS NAUSEATING.

WHY CAN’T MEN JUST LEARN HOW TO ROMANCE A WOMAN AND DO IT WELL ENOUGH THAT SHE WILL ENJOY THE SITUATION AS WELL. THE “FREE LOVE” OF MY GENERATION WAS A POPULAR IDEA; IDEALLY, HOWEVER, THE COUPLE SHOULD KNOW AND CARE ABOUT EACH OTHER DEEPLY. THERE DOESN’T SEEM TO BE ANY CARING AND PLEASANT EMOTION INVOLVED IN THIS CASE, ANYMORE THAN WITH PROFESSOR FORD.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/24/17895740/new-yorker-jane-mayer-yale-university-emails-brett-kavanaugh-deborah-ramirez
The first source of the New Yorker bombshell wasn’t Deborah Ramirez. It was Yale alumni.
The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer said she first saw Yale University alumni emails about Brett Kavanaugh’s alleged sexual misconduct in July.
By Ella Nilsenella.nilsen@vox.com Sep 24, 2018, 11:00am EDT

PHOTOGRAPH -- Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh on September 20, 2018. Alex Wong/Getty Images

The second woman accusing Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct — Deborah Ramirez — just went public with her story, but Yale University classmates of Ramirez and Kavanaugh were corresponding about the alleged incident well before reporters contacted Ramirez, New Yorker reporter Jane Mayer told NBC News on Monday. Mayer said she first saw Yale alumni emails discussing the incident in July.

On Sunday night, the New Yorker’s Jane Mayer and Ronan Farrow broke the story that Ramirez, who attended Yale University with Kavanaugh, said he drunkenly exposed himself to her in college and thrust his genitals in her face without her consent during a drinking game. In the process of pushing Kavanaugh away, Ramirez told the New Yorker she touched his penis.

“I remember a penis being in front of my face,” Ramirez told Mayer and Farrow. “I knew that’s not what I wanted, even in that state of mind.”

This is the second allegation of sexual assault or misconduct brought against Kavanaugh by a woman. Kavanaugh’s first accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, said he sexually assaulted her while the two were in high school. Kavanaugh has denied either incident happened.

Explosive new sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh brought by Ramirez broke in the New Yorker on Sunday night, but they’ve reportedly been a topic of discussion among Kavanaugh’s Yale University classmates for some time.

Mayer said she and Farrow saw emails sent between Yale alums discussing the incident back in July, before Kavanaugh’s first accuser Christine Blasey Ford went public with her accusations of Kavanaugh sexually assaulting her when the two were in high school.

“The story broke overnight, but it dates back 35 years,” Mayer told NBC News’s Savannah Guthrie on Monday morning. “What happened was, the classmates at Yale were talking to each other about it, they were emailing about it. We’ve seen the emails, back in July before Christine Blasey Ford came forward, and eventually word of it spread. It spread to the Senate. It spread to the media. And we [the New Yorker] reached out to her.”

This underscores the point that many women who experience sexual assault or harassment don’t immediately go public with those experiences, for a variety of reasons. Instead, these stories often stay confined to the small group of people who witnessed it or were told about it at the time.

As Ramirez told the New Yorker, she was hesitant to share her story because it happened when she was drinking as a college freshman. Ramirez admitted there were gaps in her memory, and it took “six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney” before she even agreed to go public with her account.

It’s worth noting Ramirez and Ford are both openly inviting further investigation into their allegations. Both women are asking the FBI to investigate the alleged incidents, something that Senate Democrats also are calling for. Ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee Sen. Dianne Feinstein has called for a halt on all confirmation proceedings until the FBI can investigate.

The big question is whether Senate Republicans — who hold the majority and want to get Kavanaugh confirmed swiftly — will agree to slowing down the process and allowing the FBI to get involved, and interview Ramirez and her Yale classmates who have reportedly been emailing about the incident involving Kavanaugh. They are eager to get the seat filled before November midterm elections and before the Supreme Court’s session begins on October 1.

IN THIS STORYSTREAM
Brett Kavanaugh is Trump’s newest Supreme Court nominee
What does Michael Avenatti have on Brett Kavanaugh? What we know so far.
The first source of the New Yorker bombshell wasn’t Deborah Ramirez. It was Yale alumni.
How the Kavanaugh allegations became a test for #MeToo


THIS IS GOING TO BE TRAUMATIC FOR THE DEMOCRATS AND THE INDEPENDENTS. I HOPE WHOEVER SUCCEEDS HIM WILL BE FAIR AND STRONG AGAINST THE RIGHTWING BASE AND THEIR GOVERNMENT LEADERS. ROSENSTEIN HAS DONE VERY WELL; I UNDERSTAND WHY HE WOULD DECIDE TO RESIGN, BECAUSE HE CAN ALMOST CERTAINLY KEEP HIS PENSION AND HEALTH, ETC. I HOPE HE, AFTER THIS IS OVER, WILL START TO WRITE ABOUT HIS EXPERIENCES.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/24/politics/rod-rosenstein-donald-trump/
Rod Rosenstein's departure would turn the Mueller investigation on its head
Chris Cillizza
Analysis by Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large
Updated 2:25 PM ET, Mon September 24, 2018

VIDEOS –
KAVANAUGH – “I WAS A VIRGIN DURING HIGH SCHOOL” 1:33
WHO IS NOEL FRANCISCO – 1:57
I NEVER SEXUALLY ASSAULTED ANYONE – 1:47
PHOTOGRAPH – COMBINED PHOTOS OF ROSENSTEIN AND MUELLER

(CNN)The expected departure of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is a massive moment in the ongoing Justice Department investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and will spawn a series of equally large reverberations in political Washington.

Rosenstein's expected departure comes just 72 hours after The New York Times reported that the deputy attorney general -- and the man overseeing the special counsel probe of Robert Mueller due to the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions -- had suggested wearing a wire to record President Donald Trump and even contemplated organizing an effort to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office. Rosenstein denied the story -- and said, via a statement, that he did not currently think the 25th Amendment applied to Trump. Under pressure from the White House, Rosenstein issued a more fulsome statement of denial Friday night.

Rosenstein was at the White House Monday and sources say he expected to be fired. He met with chief of staff John Kelly and spoke with Trump, who is in New York. He will meet with the President on Thursday, according to the White House.

While Trump was counseled by the likes of conservative talk show host Sean Hannity to keep Rosenstein in the job, his comments in a radio interview with Geraldo Rivera over the weekend made clear that he didn't totally believe Rosenstein. "I think it's a very sad story," Trump said. "We're looking into it. It's a very sad state of affairs when something like that can happen." Asked directly whether he would fire Rosenstein, Trump responded: "I don't want to comment on it until I've got all the facts. Certainly its being looked at in terms of what took place, if anything took place."

We know, of course, that Trump had contemplated firing Rosenstein before. In the wake of the FBI raid on Trump's one-time lawyer Michael Cohen back in April, CNN reported that Trump was weighing getting rid of Rosenstein as a way to curtail the Mueller investigation. And, we also know that Trump ordered the firing of Mueller last summer but was thwarted when White House counsel Don McGahn refused to carry it out, citing the blowback and damage he believed it would cause the White House. And Trump has been unrelenting in his criticism of Sessions himself, a dislike that those familiar with Trump's thinking trace to the former Alabama senator's decision to recuse himself from the Justice Department's investigation due to his close ties to Trump during the campaign. In Trump's mind, Sessions' recusal spurred the decision by Rosenstein to appoint Mueller, a former FBI director, as special counsel.

So, here's what we know: The President of the United States has railed against the attorney general, might lose the deputy attorney general and wanted to fire the special counsel. And, of course, he fired James Comey as FBI director last year -- a move the White House initially attributed to a memo written by Rosenstein that laid out Comey's protocol breaches during the 2016 campaign but that Trump admitted in an interview with NBC's Lester Holt was really about "this Russia thing."

And here's what else we know: That same president would be able to control the line of succession at the Justice Department, which determines who steps up to oversee the Mueller probe because of Sessions' recusal. While that person needs to be someone who has already been confirmed by the Senate, as of now it'd be Solicitor General Noel Francisco, who may or may not be amenable to Trump's view of the special counsel probe as a "witch hunt" and a "total hoax." Later, if Trump appointed and the Senate confirmed a Justice Department official to a position above Francisco's, that Trump-backed person would take over directing Mueller.

It could be a sea change from Rosenstein who, despite being chosen by Sessions and serving as the No. 2 in Trump's Justice Department, had repeatedly signaled that he would have no interest in removing Mueller based on the information publicly available about the investigation. In December 2017, Rosenstein, in testimony on Capitol Hill, insisted he would not fire Mueller unless there was clear evidence that the special counsel was acting appropriately. "I would follow the regulation," said Rosenstein. "If there were good cause, I would act. If there were no good cause, I would not."

Such a move would create the possibility that Mueller's probe, which remains largely a black box, could be curtailed or forced to a premature end. It remains to be seen how that news would be treated by congressional Republicans who have previously urged Trump to allow Mueller to finish his work without impediment but have also grown increasingly vocal about their desire to see the probe end sometime soon.

Even before we know a) who replaces Rosenstein b) how that person will approach to Mueller probe and c) how Congress will react to whatever the person decides to do about Mueller, we do know a few things as a result of Rosenstein's expected departure.

First, this throws the Justice Department into even more chaos as it seems to land the probe into Russia's involvement in the 2016 election, potential collusion between Russia and elements of the Trump campaign and the obstruction of justice and the possibility that Trump obstructed the probe by firing Comey. The Justice Department would be without its two top officials on a probe of a foreign country actively interfering in our elections. The Justice Department line of succession would mean that Francisco would be placed in charge of the Mueller investigation, but there is a debate as to whether presidential preference could override Justice's succession plan.

Second, it almost certainly makes the ongoing Russia probe an even more present issue in the 2018 midterm campaign. Republican strategists had openly fretted about what Trump firing Rosenstein could mean to the party's chances at the ballot box this fall, concerned that it would create not only the appearance of chaos within the White House but also that it could make the President and his inner circle look like they were desperately trying to cover something up in regards the Russia probe.

Republicans, who are hugely supportive of Trump, are unlikely to be deeply affected by such a move. But Democratic base voters, who are already hugely fired up to vote in 43 days, will likely be even more incentivized to do so -- believing that the stakes have been raised by the removal of Rosenstein. Independents and unaffiliated voters may well be turned off by the perception that Trump is meddling in an active investigation.

Third, the already-troubled confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh likely become even more so in the wake of the Rosenstein removal. Why? Because the Rosenstein news amounts to taking a boulder and throwing it into already-churning waters. Republicans are already worried about the fallout at the ballot box of continuing to push for the confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee who now faces public accusations of sexual assault and inappropriate sexual behavior as a young man. Take those extant worries and pile on the agita created by the deputy attorney general (and the guy in charge of the Mueller probe) being replaced and you have a very skittish group of Republican elected officials. And did I mention that the election is only 43 days away? The interest in defending Trump and Kavanaugh even while also answering questions about the Rosenstein's departure and next steps for the Mueller probe will be somewhere close to zero for lots of endangered Republicans who want to just get out on the campaign trial and try to keep their jobs.

The initial shock of Rosenstein is still being felt in Washington. The aftershocks the move sets off will be shaking our political system for the next days, weeks and months.


VOX, IN THIS ARTICLE, COMPARES THE ANITA HILL SITUATION WITH THAT OF PROFESSOR CHRISTINE FORD. IT’S INTERESTING AND HELPFUL, AND PROVES THAT AN FBI INVESTIGATION CERTAINLY CAN BE REOPENED. CERTAINLY, THIS INVESTIGATION INTO THE LIFE OF KAVANAUGH SHOULD BE REOPENED, AND AS SOON AS THE DEMOCRATIC CHALLENGERS BEAT THE REPUBLICANS OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE, IT WILL BE. I ALSO WANT TO SEE THE UNSCRUPULOUS ACTIONS ON THESE MATTERS BY THE REPUBLICANS IN CHARGE – GRASSLEY ET AL. – STRONGLY CHALLENGED, AND SIZEABLE MONETARY SANCTIONS PLACED ON THEM ALL.

I HAVE FAITH THAT THESE GOOD THINGS WILL OCCUR, AS MORE AND MORE OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC SEE THE TRULY UNAMERICAN CHARACTER OF ALL THAT HAS HAPPENED UNDER TRUMP, AND CONTINUES TO HAPPEN. I ALSO HAVE FAITH THAT THE NEWLY ELECTED HONEST DEMS WILL CLEAN HOUSE WHEN THEY TAKE OVER THE FORMERLY RED SEATS.

ONE OF THE CONGRESS PERSONS OF WASHINGTON DC, WHILE I LIVED THERE, NAMED ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, WAS A FORTHRIGHT GOOD DEMOCRAT, AND SHE IN HER CAMPAIGNING WOULD TAKE A BROOM ON STAGE WITH HER, SWING IT AROUND A BIT AND SAY “I’M GOING TO CLEAN HOUSE!” THE AUDIENCE LOVED IT. SHE WAS ELECTED TO CONGRESS IN 1990 AND IS RUNNING AGAIN NOW IN 2018. THAT’S WHAT WE NEED TO DO IN CONGRESS AND IN THE SENATE AS WELL, “CLEAN HOUSE.”

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/20/17879284/democrats-fbi-investigation-kavanaugh
The fight over reopening the FBI investigation into Brett Kavanaugh, explained
The FBI reviewed Anita Hill’s allegations in 1991. It hasn’t committed to investigating Christine Blasey Ford’s.
By Li Zhou and Tara Golshan Sep 20, 2018, 9:20am EDT

Photograph --

Christine Blasey Ford, who accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of having sexually assaulted her in high school, says she wants the FBI to independently investigate her claim before she testifies in front of the Senate. Kavanaugh denies Ford’s allegations.

Democratic lawmakers have been calling for an independent FBI investigation from the beginning. Senate Republicans, however, say that’s not possible because “It’s not the FBI’s role to investigate a matter such as this,” as Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley (R-IA) wrote in a letter to Ford’s lawyers on Wednesday.

Grassley argued that the FBI’s role in the confirmation process is merely to conduct a background check of the nominee, which the Senate then takes into account when determining whether or not to confirm the individual in question.

“The job of assessing and investigating a nominee’s qualifications in order to decide whether to consent to the nomination is ours, and ours alone,” Grassley wrote.

The Department of Justice, which oversees the FBI, also released a statement Wednesday noting that “[t]he allegation does not involve any potential federal crime.”

But Senate Democrats aren’t asking for a criminal investigation. They want the FBI to reopen Kavanaugh’s background check.

Grassley has shut that avenue down too, though. On Tuesday, Grassley told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt in no uncertain terms that the “FBI investigation of Judge Kavanaugh is closed” and that the “FBI is not doing any further investigation.”

Grassley’s correct — the FBI’s background investigation is closed. But there’s nothing to stop the FBI from reopening or adding to it.

In fact, in 1991, the agency did just that, at the request of then-President George H.W. Bush, when Anita Hill made sexual harassment allegations against then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas. The FBI investigated and wrote a report that eventually led the White House to declare that Hill’s allegations were unfounded.

Back then, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) — who was and still is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee — called it “the very right thing to do.”

That’s in stark contrast to the tweet his office posted on Tuesday claiming that the “FBI does not do investigations like this” and that the “responsibility falls to us.”

So what’s different with the Kavanaugh case? Nothing. Except that Republicans are adamant about getting their nominee through the process quickly — and Donald Trump doesn’t look like he’s about to ask for an FBI investigation anytime soon.

The FBI background check, briefly explained

Undergoing an FBI background check is standard operating procedure for a number of federal positions, including nominees for the Supreme Court. It’s a review that’s meant to probe a nominee’s qualifications as well as possible security risks the person could pose to the United States.

Potential vulnerability to blackmail is one such security risk. If someone has big secrets they don’t want revealed to the public — like, say, having committed sexual assault 30 years ago — a foreign country or other bad actor could learn that information and use it as blackmail. Some experts say that background checks tend to focus on more recent developments, however.

Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe highlighted the possibility of blackmail in Kavanaugh’s case as all the more reason why the FBI should conduct a full review of the sexual assault allegations against him.

Laurence Tribe
✔
@tribelaw
The argument that because sexual assault isn’t a federal crime FBI can’t investigate, its only role being to ensure a nominee isn’t a security risk, doesn’t work. A justice confirmed under this cloud could be blackmailed if evidence of perjury were to emerge later

10.3K
9:11 AM - Sep 19, 2018
Twitter Ads info and privacy
4,628 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy

As PBS NewsHour has explained, these background checks are extremely invasive probes of everything from a nominee’s romantic history to their credit score:

Candidates’ taxes, writings, childhoods, business dealings, medical histories and, yes, love lives, are all scrutinized for potential red flags. “The idea that you miss something that later torpedoed the nomination — that’s a nightmare,” said Jack Quinn, former White House counsel to President Bill Clinton.

Among the questions [Anthony] Kennedy was asked: Have you ever engaged in kinky sex? Did you shoplift as a kid? What about any associations with groups like the Klu Klux Klan [sic]? Ever abuse a girlfriend? Engage in cruelty to animals? And tell us about sex in college: How often, how many women, and did you ever contract a venereal disease?

Failed background checks have led to the downfall of many White House staffers, as well as federal nominees like Zoe Baird, whom President Bill Clinton nominated for attorney general. An FBI background check on Baird found that she was employing undocumented workers and it ultimately scuttled her nomination.

More recently, Trump’s (now former) White House staff secretary Rob Porter was also flagged during a review by the FBI, after the agency interviewed past partners who detailed allegations of domestic abuse. The White House, at the time, pleaded ignorance and said it had not received the completed results of the check.

During the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, background checks for many federal nominees were completed prior to their announcement, according to the New York Times.

Since then, however, as administrations have sought to expedite the nomination process, these checks tend to happen later on in the process. Kavanaugh’s background check was completed before his September confirmation hearing, according to Judiciary Committee spokesperson Taylor Foy. Foy added that most Supreme Court nominee checks are usually finished before a confirmation hearing takes place.

As Republicans are quick to point out, Kavanaugh has already undergone six background checks for various roles he’s held.

But none of the past background checks on Kavanaugh appeared to include an investigation into Ford’s allegation of sexual assault. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) only submitted Ford’s letter detailing her experience with Kavanaugh to the FBI on September 12, after his background check was closed.

There is precedent to add a background check to address new sexual assault allegations

The FBI confirmed last week that it added Ford’s letter detailing the allegations to an existing background file on Kavanaugh. But the inclusion of this letter simply means that officials at the White House and senators are now able to access it and evaluate it as part of their consideration of the nominee. It doesn’t mean the FBI is conducting an investigation.

On Wednesday, the DOJ released an additional statement saying that it was not the agency’s responsibility to weigh the “credibility” of allegations like the ones Ford has made, and that the “FBI’s role in such matters is to provide information for the use of the decision makers.”

But that seems to contradict actions the FBI has taken in the past in response to such allegations. The agency does not make a definitive call about how certain allegations should factor into the review of a nominee, but it has played a fact-finding role before.

In 1991, the George H.W. Bush administration directed the FBI to gather facts after Anita Hill brought sexual harassment allegations against Clarence Thomas. In Hill’s case, the timeline was slightly different.

As a former colleague of Thomas’s, she was approached by the Senate Judiciary Committee to provide background information on Thomas before his confirmation hearings had begun. She didn’t bring up the harassment allegations until his hearing had already started, according to a timeline compiled by CNN.

Hill spoke to the panel about her experience with harassment a few days after Thomas’s hearings were underway, the New York Times reported. A few weeks later, an FBI the committee suggested performing an investigation into the allegations to Hill, she says. The White House said that it found out about her allegations around that time and directed the FBI to investigate them and add them to Thomas’s background check.

The agency then compiled a report about the allegations that included interviews with Hill, Thomas, and at least one witness, and submitted it to the White House. The investigation, which took place after the confirmation hearing, but before the committee vote, took three days. Based on the findings in the report, the Bush administration concluded that Hill’s allegations were “unfounded.”

A little over a week after the committee vote, NPR’s Nina Totenberg dropped a bombshell report exposing the confidential investigation to the public. That report spurred another public hearing specifically focused on the sexual harassment allegations, which featured testimony from Hill and Thomas. “According to sources who’ve seen the FBI report, nothing in it contradicted Hill’s story except nominee Thomas, who denied any harassment,” Totenberg’s reporting noted.

Democrats remained reluctant to delay Thomas’s larger Senate vote, and he went on to get confirmed 52 to 48, just a few days after Hill testified.

Grassley’s office has pointed out that the FBI investigation of Hill’s allegations took place when they had not yet been made public. “The purpose of the background investigation process is to compile information in a confidential manner,” he writes. “Because Dr. Ford’s allegations are in the public arena, there is no longer a need for a confidential FBI investigation.”

Trump has not signaled any interest in opening an FBI investigation

The White House clearly has the ability to ask the FBI to reopen or add to a nominee’s existing background check. But so far, Trump has signaled that he isn’t particularly interested in doing so. In fact, he’s tried to shift the onus onto the FBI even though the president is traditionally the one with the ability to prompt such reviews.

“I don’t think the FBI should be involved because they don’t want to be involved, if they wanted to be I would certainly do that,” Trump said at a press appearance on Tuesday. “As you say, this is not really their thing. The senators will do a good job.”

In the Hill case, both the majority and minority leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the White House pushed for the FBI to create a report in response to Hill’s allegations.

This time around, though, only the Democrats are pushing for the same thing.

Throughout Kavanaugh’s entire confirmation process — well before the allegations of sexual assault emerged — Democrats have argued that Republicans are rushing to confirm the judge without giving the Democrats on the committee enough time to examine his record. They say that Republicans have unilaterally handled his vetting and obscured parts of his lengthy paper trail.

Now, Democrats are arguing that Republicans are once again rushing to vote on Kavanaugh’s confirmation before Ford’s allegations have been thoroughly and impartially investigated. And they’re calling on federal investigators to review the allegations and submit a report to the Senate Judiciary Committee before a hearing or vote takes place.

“A proper investigation must be completed, witnesses interviewed, evidence reviewed and all sides spoken to,” Feinstein said in a statement Wednesday. “Only then should the chairman set a hearing date.”

But Republicans are pushing back, insisting that no FBI investigation is needed and that the Democrats are merely trying to stall the vote. Instead, they’ve invited both Ford and Kavanaugh to testify publicly before the committee and address the allegations that way.

Ford previously said she would be open to testifying. On Tuesday, however, Ford’s lawyers sent a letter to Grassley saying Ford wants the FBI to investigate the alleged incident before she appears in front of the Senate.

Republicans are now saying that if she doesn’t testify Monday, they will proceed with the vote. Democrats don’t have much recourse if that happens.

All of this is occurring against the backdrop of the upcoming midterm elections
Republicans have long maintained that they’d like to get Kavanaugh’s confirmation squared away by early October, November at the latest. Democrats could stand to benefit if the vote does end up stalling.

If a vote takes place closer to the November 6 midterm elections, for example, Democrats could echo the arguments Republicans made to stymie Obama-era Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland and claim that voters deserve to be heard before the Supreme Court vote takes place.

(Democrats’ wariness toward Grassley’s approach comes after Republicans blocked Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland from getting a Supreme Court hearing and changed Senate rules to confirm Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch to the Court.)

There’s also a slim possibility that Democrats could win back control of the Senate in the midterm elections. That wouldn’t immediately change things, but would give them significantly more leverage over judicial nominees in the future.

An FBI investigation and report doesn’t guarantee that the Senate would interpret its findings as vindicating Ford. After all, the Bush White House didn’t see its FBI report as vindicating Hill.

That seems to be a risk Ford is willing to take.

“While no sexual assault survivor should be subjected to such an ordeal, Dr. Ford wants to cooperate with the Committee and with law enforcement officials,” Ford’s lawyer wrote in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee. “As the Judiciary Committee has recognized and done before, an FBI investigation of the incident should be the first step in addressing the allegations.”

IN THIS STORYSTREAM
#MeToo: Sexual harassment and assault allegations continue to surface across industries
What we know — and still don’t — about the sexual misconduct allegations against Brett Kavanaugh
The fight over reopening the FBI investigation into Brett Kavanaugh, explained
What’s wrong with the “just a teen” Kavanaugh defense, according to a psychologist


MAYBE I’M JUST BIASED AGAINST HIM, BUT THE MORE I LEARN ABOUT KAVANAUGH THE MORE I SEE HIM AS BEING BORDERLINE MENTALLY ILL. I SEE SEXUAL ASSAULT AS NOT ONLY TRULY DANGEROUS IN ITSELF, BUT INDICATIVE OF SUCH DEPTHS THAT THE PERSON – MALE OR FEMALE – COULD BE PSYCHOTIC. THEY CERTAINLY SHOULDN’T BE IN A POSITION OF POWER AND INFLUENCE SUCH AS THE SUPREME COURT.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/24/politics/senate-democrats-brett-kavanaugh-allegations/index.html
What Senate Democrats did with the new Kavanaugh allegation
CNN Digital Expansion DC Manu Raju
By Manu Raju, CNN Senior Congressional Correspondent
Updated 1:54 PM ET, Mon September 24, 2018

VIDEO -- Ronan Farrow details new Kavanaugh allegations 06:29

(CNN)Last week, rumors began to circulate on Capitol Hill about an incident in college involving President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee where Brett Kavanaugh allegedly exposed himself at a party at Yale, making their way to Senate Democrats who referred the matter to an attorney in Colorado.

Among the offices aware of the allegation was Hawaii Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono's, who told CNN Monday she passed the information along to the office of California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, the panel tasked with vetting Kavanaugh's nomination.

But Senate Democrats acknowledged Monday they have no knowledge if the allegations are true, though they consider them credible, and are calling for further investigation into the matter.

Hirono told CNN she heard nothing else about the allegation until The New Yorker's Ronan Farrow contacted her Sunday for a comment about a story publishing the bombshell allegations, which Kavanaugh vehemently denies.

A Senate aide who was aware of the allegation said Hirono's office contacted Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet's office because the accuser, Deborah Ramirez, is one of his Colorado constituents. Others aware of this allegation contacted Bennet's office as well.

At that point, Bennet's office contacted the former Boulder District Attorney Stan Garnett, and asked Garnett to reach out to Ramirez because they believed she may have needed legal representation, according to Bennet aides, who said multiple sources had reached out to them about the allegation. Those conversations occurred mid-last week.

How the information was handled by Democrats is now a key point of controversy as the GOP contends that it amounts to an orchestrated smear campaign against Trump's nominee. Democrats say the information is credible and deserves further investigating by the FBI.

But several Democratic sources strongly dispute that there was an active investigation into those allegations as reported by The New Yorker.

Republicans attacked Democrats for withholding the information -- and Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa and other Republicans on the committee denied having any knowledge of the matter.

Asked about her role, Hirono defended her efforts and would not explain why she didn't tell Grassley — other than to call for further investigation.

"My staff along with other offices I know got reports that there may be another victim, so we passed that information along to the staff of the ranking member," Hirono told CNN. "And that was it until I heard from Ronan Farrow on the day the article came out, because he knows how vocal I have been on this issue."

Asked to respond to Hirono's assertion that she passed the information along to Feinstein's office last week, a Feinstein spokesman said "there were (and are) many rumors swirling, but we had no details about this."

CNN has not independently confirmed The New Yorker's reporting.

Kavanaugh has categorically denied the account, saying in a statement, "This alleged event from 35 years ago did not happen. The people who knew me then know that this did not happen, and have said so. This is a smear, plain and simple. I look forward to testifying on Thursday about the truth, and defending my good name -- and the reputation for character and integrity I have spent a lifetime building -- against these last-minute allegations."

White House spokesperson Kerri Kupec said in a statement, "This 35-year-old, uncorroborated claim is the latest in a coordinated smear campaign by the Democrats designed to tear down a good man. This claim is denied by all who were said to be present and is wholly inconsistent with what many women and men who knew Judge Kavanaugh at the time in college say. The White House stands firmly behind Judge Kavanaugh."


NOW, HERE’S A STRANGE ONE. I CAN’T SWEAR THAT THIS CAN’T BE TRUE, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE THE KIND OF STORY THAT SANDRA NEWMAN, A WRITER WHO STUDIES FALSE RAPE REPORT CASES DESCRIBES AS THE TYPICAL FALSE RAPE ALLEGATION. WITH EMOTIONAL PEOPLE OF THE SORT THAT SHE SEEMS TO BE IN THIS ARTICLE, ARE THEY SO IMPRESSIONABLE THAT WORKING WITH FACEBOOK MATERIALS TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THE ACCOUNT SHOULD BE ELIMINATED WOULD CAUSE PTSD? https://www.vox.com/first-person/2018/9/18/17874504/kavanaugh-assault-allegation-christine-blasey-ford

NEWMAN WAS SPEAKING, IN THIS VOX ARTICLE ABOVE, ON THE PROBABLE TRUTHFULNESS OF THE KAVANAUGH WITNESS, PROFESSOR CHRISTINE FORD; SHE DESCRIBES THE TYPE OF REPORT THAT IS TOLD BY WOMEN WHO ARE MAKING THE STORY UP – USUALLY TEENAGERS, AND MOST OFTEN TO COVER UP A MINOR INFRACTION SUCH AS NOT BEING HOME BEFORE CURFEW – VERY WILD, EMOTIONAL AND LURID. SO, WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE? IS THIS FACEBOOK WORKER’S COMPLAINT THE TRUTH? WHAT IS THE WORKER ENVIRONMENT LIKE AT FACEBOOK? WE NEED MORE EVIDENCE FROM OTHER WORKERS AS TO WHAT THE FACEBOOK WORK POLICIES AND CONDITIONS ARE.

STILL THE STORY OF PTSD COULD BE TRUE. THE WORKING CONDITIONS NEED TO BE DESCRIBED. I AM ALREADY PREJUDICED AGAINST FACEBOOK FOR ITS’ (PROBABLY FINANCIAL) COLLABORATION WITH THE RUSSIA/REPUBLICAN/TRUMPIAN CONSPIRACY. I FIND IT UNACCEPTABLE. WHY, WHY DID FACEBOOK ALLOW ITS’ PERSONAL MATERIAL – VOLUNTARILY GIVEN – TO BE USED BY CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA? IF FACEBOOK IS DIRTY, HOW DIRTY?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/class-action-lawsuit-against-facebook-alleges-moderators-job-gave-her-ptsd/
By IRINA IVANOVA MONEYWATCH September 24, 2018, 1:30 PM
Class-action lawsuit against Facebook alleges moderator's job gave her PTSD

A woman who worked as a content moderator for Facebook is suing the tech giant, claiming Facebook failed to adequately protect her from getting PTSD from the graphic violent images her job required her to watch.

The lawsuit, filed on Friday in California state court in San Mateo County, is seeking class-action status, the woman's attorney said.

"Facebook is ignoring its duty to provide a safe workplace and instead creating a revolving door of contractors who are irreparably traumatized by what they witnessed on the job," Korey Nelson of the law firm Burns Charest said in an announcement.

The lawsuit claims that Facebook has drafted work safety standards to protect content moderators from the graphic content they're tasked with removing from the platform, but that it ignores those standards when it comes to its own contractors. "Instead, the multibillion-dollar corporation affirmatively requires its content moderators to work under conditions known to cause and exacerbate psychological trauma," the suit alleges.

The plaintiff, Selena Scola, says in the suit she was a content moderator for Facebook employed by the contracting firm Pro Unlimited for nine months starting last June. As part of her job she was supposedly subjected to "videos, images and livestreamed broadcasts of child sexual abuse, rape, torture, bestiality, beheadings, suicide and murder," according to the suit. She was formally diagnosed with PTSD at an unspecified time, the suit says, and is asking Facebook to set up a medical monitoring fund to treat PTSD patients.

A Facebook spokesperson did not immediately reply to a request for comment.

This is a developing story.

© 2018 CBS Interactive Inc.. All Rights Reserved.


“THE DOPPELGANGER THEORY” IS PROPOSED BY ED WHELAN OF THE NATIONAL REVIEW, AS THE GOP TEAM KAVANAUGH/TRUMP IS MADE MORE AND MORE NERVOUS BY THE CONTINUING SEXUAL ALLEGATIONS. IT’S LIKE A FOREST FIRE. THE MINUTE YOU PUT OUT ONE SPOT, IT WILL POP UP SOMEWHERE ELSE. WHELAN HAS APOLOGIZED FOR HIS STUPIDITY, BUT NOT FOR HIS WILLINGNESS TO DELIVER AN INTERNET ASSAULT ON ONE OF KAVANAUGH’S TOTALLY INNOCENT CLASSMATES, WHO THANK GOODNESS HAS NOT BEEN NAMED IN THE PRESS THAT I’VE SEEN.

CHRISTINE FORD SAYS THAT SHE KNOWS THAT STUDENT, AND THAT SHE WOULD NEVER CONFUSE HIM WITH KAVANAUGH. ON ONE OF GRACE MADDOW’S SHOWS SINCE ALL THIS TRUMPING OF THE NATION BEGAN, SHE COMPARED IT TO “THE SILLY SEASON.” THAT CERTAINLY DOES DESCRIBE THIS. IT DOES DEPICT A SERIOUS SIDE, THOUGH, AND THAT IS THAT THESE TRUMPIAN REPUBLICANS AREN’T EVEN CONSIDERING STICKING TO THE TRUTH.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/21/ed-whelans-kavanaugh-tweets-conservatives-hyped-pundit-who-promised-prove-judge-innocent/
The Fix
Conservatives hyped a pundit who promised to prove Kavanaugh innocent. Then they saw his theory.
By Avi Selk
September 21, 2018

PHOTOGRAPH -- Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh. (Joshua Roberts/Reuters)

All week, as the country debated Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation that Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in high school, a hopeful rumor grew in conservative circles that a close friend of the Supreme Court nominee had obtained irrefutable proof of his innocence.

The friend was Ed Whelan, a National Review legal writer who is held in high esteem by Kavanaugh’s allies, and in fact has been advising the federal judge as he seeks Senate confirmation to the high court.

“By one week from today, I expect that Judge Kavanaugh will have been clearly vindicated on this matter,” Whelan tweeted cryptically on Tuesday. “Specifically, I expect that compelling evidence will show his categorical denial to be truthful.”

[Kavanaugh’s accuser might be better off with a criminal trial. So might Kavanaugh.]

Whelan kept hinting at exculpatory evidence in subsequent tweets — at “much more” to come. These hints were promoted by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch’s deputy chief of staff and reportedly piqued the fascination of White House officials struggling to defend their nominee.

“Ed Whelan is the model of careful, discerning legal analysis and commentary,” National Review editor Rich Lowry told Politico on Thursday. “It’s why all of us who know him take everything he says and writes so seriously.”

Then, that same evening, Whelan delivered . . . a beyond-speculative Twitter thread in which he compiled Google Maps images, old yearbook photos and floor plans he found on the Internet to make the case that one of Kavanaugh’s classmates may have actually attacked Ford.

So much for the hype. The American Conservative condemned the “crackpot theory” hours after Whelan had shared it. All night and into the morning, the legal scholar’s former supporters rushed to disavow his speculation. And Whelan soon deleted the entire thread and apologized for using the classmate’s name — even as he tried to assure reporters Kavanaugh had no role in concocting it.

His regrettable opus had begun with a tweet now being parodied across the Internet: “Okay, I’ll begin laying out some information concerning Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations against Judge Kavanaugh.”

Okay, I'll begin laying out some information proving that Ed Whelan did not write that tweetstorm

— David Dayen (@ddayen) September 20, 2018

Over the following two dozen tweets, Whelan laid out what could only arguably be called “information.”

He began by dissecting Sunday’s Washington Post article in which Ford alleged she attended a small house party in Maryland in the early 1980s, then fled after a teenage Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed and tried to rip her clothes off.

Whelan pulled clues from the article — such as Ford’s recollection that the house was located near a certain country club — to argue it could not have been Kavanaugh’s home, nor any of the other people Ford said attended the party. “None of the four lived in the vicinity of the Columbia Country Club,” he wrote.

Then, citing Kavanaugh’s 1983 yearbook and Google Maps, Whelan identified a certain classmate who apparently had lived near the country club. Using Zillow.com, he found the floor plans for the classmate’s old house and proceeded to investigate.

Ford told the Post she remembered an upstairs bathroom at the party, and, lo — the classmate’s house had one of those.

(Ed Whelan via Twitter)
“She says the gathering took place in a small family room,'" Whelan wrote. “See the family room in the upper left of the floor plan.”

The point at which many began to lose faith in Whelan’s analysis probably came when he posted side-by-side yearbook photos of Kavanaugh and the classmate and noted “how much they resembled each other.” (The Post will not identify the classmate or link to Whelan’s images; but suffice to say the two boys had similar haircuts.)

“To be clear,” Whelan wrote in conclusion, “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 [Kavanaugh’s classmate] or anyone else committed the sexual assault that Ford alleges.”

“Dude,” replied Ben Shapiro, who edits the conservative Daily Wire. “What are you doing?”

Shapiro was hardly the only person to express the sentiment, or worse. Ford responded to Whelan’s theory within hours, saying in a statement she knew the classmate in question, and “there is zero chance that I would confuse” him for Kavanaugh.

Days-old tweets that had hyped Whelan’s info drop began disappearing from Twitter almost as soon as he had published it.

“I had no idea what Ed was planning,” wrote the [ORRIN] Hatch staffer who had advertised Whelan’s feed. “I didn’t want to promote a thread that dragged an unrelated private citizen into this unfortunate situation.”

Deleting tweets of my own that included his thread for that reason. This is something Kavanaugh allies had privately said could be the case for days but doing it this way, as an apparent reaction to Ford likely testifying, suggests a level of panic. https://t.co/zRt2fELDaU

— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) September 20, 2018
The general Twitter commentariat was savage — comparing Whelan to QAnon and the Unabomber, and hoping out loud the classmate he had named would sue him for defamation.

Right-wing pundits were not much kinder.

“It is inconceivable that this Whelan defense will help Kavanaugh in any way,” Rod Dreher wrote in the American Conservative. “In fact, it’s so nasty and desperate-seeming that it taints Kavanaugh, despite that fact that he might have had nothing to do with it.”

Whelan had “metaphorically set himself on fire” to advance an admittedly “interesting” theory, was the Washington Examiner’s take.

Fox & Friends contributed the rare positive review. “He put up side by side images,” Steve Doocy told his co-hosts. “They look a lot alike!” And some, like New York Times writer Ross Douthat, refused to believe Thursday’s tweets were all Whelan had up his sleeve.

I don't know Brett Kavanaugh, which has made it easier for me than for conservatives closer to the man to believe he might be guilty. I do know Ed Whelan, which makes me assume there's more reason to believe the doppelganger theory than just what he just tweeted. We'll see.

— Ross Douthat (@DouthatNYT) September 20, 2018
By on Friday morning, barely 12 hours after he revealed his theory, Whelan deleted it.

“I made an appalling and inexcusable mistake of judgment in posting the tweet thread in a way that identified Kavanaugh’s Georgetown Prep classmate,” he wrote. “I take full responsibility for that mistake, and I deeply apologize for it. I realize that does not undo the mistake.”

As the day rolled on, even the White House disavowed the theory.

More reading:
Brett Kavanaugh wins the Roy Moore endorsement — not that he asked for it
Trump questions credibility of Kavanaugh accuser, lashes out at Democrats


WHEN LOGIC AND BASIC KINDNESS TO THE LESS POWERFUL MEMBERS OF ANY SOCIETY ARE NOT AT ITS' CENTER, IT CAN'T BE CALLED A CIVILIZATION. THAT IS THE PLACE WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW. I KNOW THAT WILL CHANGE SOMETIME, BECAUSE EVERYTHING DOES, BUT WE HOW SOON? I UNDERSTAND THE FAMILY MEMBERS, ALL OF WHOM ARE APPARENTLY POLITICALLY INVOLVED, STANDING UP PUBLICALLY AGAINST A RIGHT-LEANING RACIST MAN WHO IS A BROTHER IN BLOOD, BUT NOT IN SPIRIT. THE SITUATION THE USA IS IN RIGHT NOW IS EXTREMELY SERIOUS. WHEN I WAS YOUNG, WE SAT AROUND THE TABLE AFTER DINNER AND TALKED POLITICS, ACROSS PARTY LINES. NOBODY IS THAT CAREFREE ABOUT IT ANY MORE, FOR OBVIOUS REASONS. WHEN I FIRST READ THIS STORY, I LAUGHED, BUT NOW REREADING IT, IT CLEARLY ISN'T FUNNY. THE SCHISM IN OUR COUNTRY IS APPEARING IN FAMILIES NOW.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/22/these-six-yes-six-siblings-republican-congressman-just-endorsed-his-opponent/
Six siblings of a GOP congressman endorsed his opponent. Here’s how he responded.
By Eli Rosenberg
September 22, 2018

Families are complicated, their private tensions and political disagreements often kept under wraps.

That’s not the case with Rep. Paul A. Gosar (R-Ariz.), whose opponent in the midterm election just got a boost from Gosar’s siblings.

Six of them.

The brothers and sisters — Tim, Jennifer, Gaston, Joan, Grace and David — appeared in campaign advertisements for David Brill, the Democrat hoping to unseat Gosar in Arizona’s 4th Congressional District in the midterm election.

[‘This is sickening’: Sen. Jeff Flake lashes out at Trump Jr. for his post mocking Kavanaugh accuser]

The Gosar siblings framed their endorsement of Brill as a matter of values, saying their brother, who has long drawn headlines for his far-right views, and his politics were simply too much for them to stomach.

“We gotta stand up for our good name,” David Gosar said in the advertisement. “This is not who we are.”
“I couldn’t be quiet any longer, nor should any of us be,” Grace Gosar said.
“I think my brother has traded a lot of the values we had at our kitchen table,” said another sister, Joan.

In an interview with The Washington Post, David Gosar, 57, a lawyer in Jackson, Wyo., said he felt obligated to speak out against his brother because of his views, though he wished it weren’t the case.

“There isn’t a kooky, crazy, nutty thing that he isn’t a part of,” he said. “What are we supposed to do?”

David Gosar said he doesn’t talk to his brother much anymore. The split came around the time of his congressional run, when he said his brother told him he believed the “birther” theory that President Barack Obama’s birth certificate is fake. (A 2010 clip from Politico quotes Paul Gosar as declining to say whether he believed Obama was born in the United States, saying it was “for the courts and for other people to decide.”)

“I was like, ‘Oh my God, you have to be kidding me,’ and then he went and got elected,” David Gosar said. “I’m not going to break bread with a racist.”

Paul Gosar did not respond to a request for comment sent to his spokeswoman, but on Saturday, he tweeted that the six family members are “liberal Democrats who hate President Trump.” He added that they do not live in Arizona and claimed Brill’s policies are “out of sync with what Arizona wants and the country needs.”

“These disgruntled Hillary supporters are related by blood to me but like leftists everywhere, they put political ideology before family,” he tweeted, adding the hashtag #MAGA2018 for the Trump campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again.”

Rep. Paul Gosar speaks during a bus tour stop with Senate candidate Kelli Ward in Paulden, Ariz., last month. (Caitlin O'Hara/Bloomberg)

[GOP congressman jokes about Ruth Bader Ginsburg being groped — by Abraham Lincoln]

Paul Gosar, who became a congressman in 2011, has drawn coverage for his extreme rhetoric in recent years.

In January, he drew bipartisan rebukes after he said he asked the Capitol Police and Attorney General Jeff Sessions to check IDs at the State of the Union to arrest and deport any undocumented immigrants in attendance.

At least one senator, Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), planned to bring an undocumented “dreamer” to the speech as a guest.

The next month, Gosar said FBI and Department of Justice officials such as Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, former acting attorney general Sally Yates and former FBI director James B. Comey should face “treason” charges because of developments in the Russia investigation.

In the summer, he spoke at a rally in London for one of Britain’s most notorious anti-Muslim campaigners, Tommy Robinson, drawing rebukes from Muslim American groups.

But perhaps his most notorious moment came in 2017 in an interview with Vice News, when he spread a baseless conspiracy theory that the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville that summer had been “created by the left.”

He also brought up the common right-wing falsehood that the liberal philanthropist and financier George Soros, who survived the Holocaust, had collaborated with Nazis.

Seven siblings — there are 10 in total, including the congressman — responded at the time by writing a letter to the Kingman Daily Miner, a newspaper in Gosar’s district, decrying his comments in blunt terms.

“We are aghast that Paul has sunk so low that he now spews the most despicable slander against an 87-year-old man without a shred of proof,” the letter said. “Those aren’t our family values or the values of the small Wyoming town we grew up in. … It is extremely upsetting to have to call you out on this, Paul, but you’ve forced our hand with your deceit and anti-semitic dog whistle.”

Pete Gosar, who was the seventh signee of the letter, ran for governor of Wyoming as a Democrat in 2014.

[Conservatives hyped a pundit who promised to prove Kavanaugh innocent. Then they saw his theory.]

Brill’s ads, of which there are at least three, were filmed in Jackson and Laramie, Wyo. Brill’s team reached out to the Gosar siblings after seeing some of their criticism on social media, according to the Phoenix New Times.

A physician and a businessman before he decided to run for office, Brill has campaigned on a public health option like Medicare available to all and a platform of lowering the national debt, according to the Arizona Republic.

He faces an uphill battle for the seat; Gosar trounced his Democratic opponent in the deep-red district in 2016, receiving 71.5 percent of the votes. The counties that make up Gosar’s district voted heavily for Donald Trump.

Family members who split with their political kin tend to draw attention and media coverage and are often sought by opposing campaigns.

In the recent election cycle, the son of retiring Republican representative Bob Goodlatte of Virginia made waves when he endorsed the Democrat running to replace him in August. In the Wisconsin race to replace Paul D. Ryan, the brother of Democrat Randy Bryce endorsed his Republican opponent in an advertisement by a conservative group.

David Gosar said Paul Gosar’s politics have caused a strain in the family, which hails from the small town of Pinedale, Wyo.

In one of the ads, Grace Gosar, a physician, says, “It would be difficult to see my brother as anything but a racist.” David Gosar said their parents, who are in their 80s, are Republicans and support his brother. And he says he’s disappointed in the three siblings who didn’t stand with them for the advertisement.

He said he’s also upset by people who tell him that there’s something wrong with breaking with his family or who make the situation into a joke.

“This is serious stuff, and I’m tired of people making light of it. This is causing serious damage to the country,” he said. “If you can’t speak out against your family, then don’t be a hypocrite and speak out against someone else’s family member.”

His brother Paul, however, found some humor in the familial feud, tweeting, “You can’t pick your family."

“To the six angry Democrat Gosars—see you at Mom and Dad’s house!”


FLAKE’S SCORN OF DONALD TRUMP JR REFERS TO THIS IMAGE THAT THE YOUNG BILLIONAIRE SHARED.

https://therobertreport.net/2018/09/20/this-is-sickening-sen-jeff-flake-lashes-out-at-trump-jr-for-his-post-mocking-kavanaugh-accuser/
This is sickening’: Sen. Jeff Flake lashes out at Trump Jr. for his post mocking Kavanaugh accuse
september 20, 2018 by jerry roberts, posted in articles & news, audio interviews ~ podcasts ~ video, vicious rumors ~ lies & opinions
Screen Shot 2018-09-20 at 8.22.20 AM.png

FLAKE CALLS TO DELAY KAVANAUGH VOTE WHILE SOME REPUBLICANS DISMISS ALLEGATION

PHOTOGRAPH -- Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) called for an investigation of a sexual assault allegation against Brett M. Kavanaugh, before voting on his Supreme Court nomination. (Reuters)

By Reis Thebault
September 20 at 12:04 AM

Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a frequent White House foe, lashed out at Donald Trump Jr. on Wednesday after the president’s son appeared to mock the woman who accused Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh of sexual assault.

President Trump has been increasingly vocal in his defense of Kavanaugh since a confidential letter that detailed assault allegations became public, but he has largely stayed away from publicly challenging the accuser’s credibility — unlike his eldest son.

Trump Jr. posted a meme to his Instagram account over the weekend depicting a grade school love letter, written in crayon with words misspelled, that asked “will you be my girlfreind” and was signed “love, Bret.” The picture was stamped with the words “Judge Kavanaughs sexual assault letter found by Dems.”

On Twitter on Wednesday, Flake called Trump Jr.’s comments “sickening.”

“No one should make light of this situation,” wrote Flake, who is retiring from the Senate at the end of his term. He attached an image of the meme.

NOTE: THIS IMAGE IS AN APPARENT PHOTOGRAPH OF A CHILDISH LOVE NOTE FROM LITTLE BRETT TO LITTLE CHRISTINE. DnevmGMVsAETSY-.jpg

~~~ CONTINUE ~~~