SEPTEMBER 25 AND 26, 2018


NEWS AND VIEWS


SECTION ONE: THESE ARE ALL ABOUT SENATE HEARINGS, SUPREME COURT JUSTICES, KAVANAUGH AND DEMOCRATS VERSUS REPUBLICANS. FOR OTHER NEWS SEE BELOW. I HAVE CHOSEN SIMPLY TO FIND AS MANY RELIABLE ARTICLES ON THE SUBJECT, AND SAY VERY LITTLE OF MY OWN VIEWS; WELL, THERE WILL BE A LITTLE BIT, MAYBE. ANYWAY, EVERYONE KNOWS THAT I AM A DEMOCRAT AND A FEMINIST (AND IN MY PERSPECTIVE A “TRUE” PATRIOT).

I ALSO HATE THIS WHOLE CHARADE OF REPUBLICAN CONCOCTED “PROCEDURES,” WHICH JUST MEANS THAT THEY ARE GOING TO DO ONLY WHAT SEEMS TO BE TO THEIR ADVANTAGE WITH NO ATTEMPT AT JUSTICE. I WONDER HOW THEY WILL FEEL WHEN A THIRD OR MORE OF THEIR CONGRESS AND SENATE SEATS GO TO DEMOCRATS? I KNOW. THAT MAY NOT HAPPEN, BUT IT CERTAINLY COULD, GIVEN THE WAY I AND MOST OF MY FRIENDS FEEL. THIS WOULD ALSO BE A GOOD TIME FOR A NEW PUBLIC OPINION POLL, I THINK.


DO WATCH THESE TWO CBS NEWS VIDEOS.

https://www.cbsnews.com/video/republicans-hire-female-lawyer-to-question-kavanaugh-accuser-at-hearing/

https://www.cbsnews.com/video/avenatti-releases-statement-of-third-kavanaugh-accuser-julie-swetnick/


I WONDER IF THE REPUBLICANS WHO ARE IN CHARGE ON THIS TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE WILL DECLARE THAT THESE FOUR NEW ARE “INADMISSIBLE?” I WONDER IF THERE WILL BE RAUCOUS STREET PROTESTS DOWN THE MAIN STREET OF WASHINGTON DC?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/26/kavanaugh-accuser-submits-four-declarations-from-people-says-corroborate-her-assault-allegations.html
CONFIRMATION OF JUDGE KAVANAUGH 12 hours ago 5:02 PM
Kavanaugh accuser submits four declarations from people she says corroborate her assault allegations
By Lukas Mikelionis | Fox News

VIDEO -- Is allegation against Kavanaugh missing key details?
Penny Young Nance, president and CEO of Concerned Women for America, says the timing of Dr. Ford's allegation is suspicious.

Napolitano: Is this how to confirm a Supreme Court Justice?
Judge Napolitano explains how a rush to judgement and a rush to confirm Judge Brett Kavanaugh is unfair to all parties involved.

Christine Blasey Ford’s attorneys have sent documents to the Senate Judiciary Committee with declarations from four people who they say corroborate her story of sexual assault by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

The declarations, as first obtained by USA Today, are from Ford’s husband Russell Ford and three friends who stand behind the accuser’s allegation against Kavanaugh while both were high school students in 1982.

The statements will be used by Ford’s legal team during the much-anticipated committee hearing Thursday that will examine both the credibility of Ford’s allegations and Kavanaugh’s denials.

President Trump criticizes second Kavanaugh accuser. White House spokesperson Kerri Kupec responds on 'Fox News @ Night.'

In a declaration by Adela Gildo-Mazzon, who has known Ford for over 10 years and considers her a “good friend,” she claims Ford told her about the incident involving Kavanaugh back in June 2013. She contacted the attorneys for Ford on Sept. 16 to inform that she was told about the story.

“During our meal, Christine was visibly upset, so I asked her what was going on,” Gildo-Mazzon says in her declaration. “Christine told me she had been having a hard day because she was thinking about an assault she experienced when she was much younger. She said she had been almost raped by someone who was now a federal judge. She told me she had been trapped in a room with two drunken guys, and that she had escaped, ran away and hid.”

"Christine told me she had been having a hard day because she was thinking about an assault she experienced when she was much younger. She said she had been almost raped by someone who was now a federal judge."

- Adela Gildo-Mazzon
Keith Koegler, another person who claims to corroborate Ford’s allegations, says he talked about the alleged assault with her in 2016 in the midst of the sentencing of Stanford University student Brock Turner.

“Christine expressed anger at Mr. Turner’s lenient sentence, stating that she was particularly bothered by it because she was assaulted in high school by a man who was now a federal judge in Washington, D.C.,” Koegler said.

"Christine expressed anger at Mr. Turner’s lenient sentence, stating that she was particularly bothered by it because she was assaulted in high school by a man who was now a federal judge in Washington, D.C."

- Keith Koegler
“Christine did not mention the assault to me again until June 29, 2018, two days after Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his resignation from the Supreme Court of the United States,” he continued.

He says that Ford told him in an email that the person who had assaulted her in high school was President Trump’s favorite for the nomination of the Supreme Court. After asking to reveal his name, Ford then named Kavanaugh in the email.

Another declaration is from Rebecca White, who has known Ford for more than six years. She says Ford told her about the allegations against her sometime in 2017.

“I was walking my dog and Christine was outside of her house,” she said. “I stopped to speak with her, and she told me she had read a recent social media post I had written about my own experience with sexual assault.

“She then told me that when she was a young teen, she had been sexually assaulted by an older teen,” White added. “I remember her saying that her assailant was now a federal judge.”

"She then told me that when she was a young teen, she had been sexually assaulted by an older teen. I remember her saying that her assailant was now a federal judge."

- Rebecca White
The last declaration is from Ford’s husband who reportedly learned about the allegations when they got married, though she shared the details only in 2012 when they were having a couple’s therapy session.

“I remember her saying that her attacker’s name was Brett Kavanaugh, that he was a successful lawyer who had grown up in Christine’s hometown, and that he was well-known in the Washington D.C. community,” Russell Ford said.

Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy explains why he is suggesting the Kavanaugh-Ford [Hearing] may not take place.

He said his wife was “afraid” Kavanaugh will become the nominee for the Supreme Court and wasn’t sure if she should come forward with her allegations.

“However, in the end she believed her civic duty required her to speak out,” he added. “In our 16 years of marriage I have always known Christine to be truthful person of great integrity. I am proud of her for her bravery and courage.”

The declarations of four individuals are sure to strengthen Ford’s case when she appears before the Senate committee. In recent days, her story took a hit after initially telling the Washington Post last week that here were a total of “four boys at the party” where the alleged episode occurred and that two – Kavanaugh and friend Mark Judge -- were in the room during her attack.

She claims her therapist made an error when he noted in his notes that she said all four boys were involved in the alleged incident.

Those boys purportedly included Kavanaugh, Judge and another classmate, Patrick Smyth -- all of whom have since denied to the Senate Judiciary Committee, under penalty of felony, any knowledge of the particular party in question or any misconduct by Kavanaugh.

However, a woman, Leland Ingham Keyser, a former classmate of Ford's at the Holton-Arms all-girls school in Maryland, has since been identified by Ford as the fourth witness at the party. In a dramatic twist, Keyser, who has never been described as a “boy,” emerged Saturday night to say she doesn’t know Kavanaugh or remember being at the party with him.

Fox News’ Gregg Re* contributed to this report.

Lukas Mikelionis is a reporter for FoxNews.com. Follow him on Twitter @LukasMikelionis.

GREG RE*
Gregg Re
Gregg Re is an editor for Fox News. Follow him on Twitter @gregg_re.



“IT WOULD SURE CLEAR UP ALL THE QUESTIONS, WOULDN’T IT?"

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/25/murkowski-key-vote-in-kavanaugh-confirmation-signals-support-for-accuser-fbi-probe.html
Murkowski, key vote in Kavanaugh confirmation, signals support for accuser, FBI probe
Gregg Re By Gregg Re | Fox News

VIDEO – THURSDAY TESTIMONY

Just days before Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee plan to hold a critical vote on whether to recommend Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation to the full Senate, a key swing vote Republican senator, Lisa Murkowski, seemed to suggest that her support for the nominee is wavering.

“We are now in a place where it’s not about whether or not Judge Kavanaugh is qualified,” Murkowski said in an interview on Monday night. “It is about whether or not a woman who has been a victim at some point in her life is to be believed.”

Asked Tuesday about whether an FBI inquiry into the decades-old allegations against Kavanaugh should occur -- a repeated demand by Democratic lawmakers -- Murkowski replied, “It would sure clear up all the questions, wouldn’t it?"

VIDEO – NBC NEWS

NBC News
✔
@NBCNews
Asked if there should be an FBI investigation into Judge Kavanaugh’s past, Sen. Murkowski says: “It would sure clear up all the questions, wouldn’t it?”

11:32 AM - Sep 25, 2018
8,510
3,545 people are talking about this

However, Murkowski later told Fox News that she expects Thursday's planned Judiciary Committee hearing, where both Kavanaugh and accuser Christine Blasey Ford are expected to testify, will clear up many of the questions currently surrounding his nomination.

Murkowski's comments seemingly put her at odds with her Republican colleagues in the Senate, including Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who have said the Senate, not the FBI, has the constitutional duty to investigate the Kavanaugh claims.

“It would sure clear up all the questions, wouldn’t it?"

- Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, on an FBI probe
The FBI would need explicit White House instruction to conduct a probe into the allegations against Kavanaugh, Fox News has learned, because they fall well outside any applicable statute of limitations for a federal crime.

PHOTOGRAPH -- "We are now in a place where it’s not about whether or not Judge Kavanaugh is qualified," Murkowski said. (AP, File)

The agency already forwarded the allegations to the White House as part of its background check on Kavanaugh.

"It's totally inappropriate for someone to demand we use law enforcement resources to investigate a 35-year-old allegation when she won't go under oath and can't remember key details including when or where it happened," a federal law enforcement official told Fox News.

Murkowski's office did not immediately reply to a request for further clarification from Fox News on Tuesday.

FLASHBACK: BIDEN, IN 1991, SAYS ONLY PEOPLE WHO DON'T UNDERSTAND 'ANYTHING' WOULD CALL FOR FBI PROBE

Republicans hold a slender 51-49 majority in the Senate, with Vice President Mike Pence available to break any ties. That means if Republicans lose Murkowski's vote, they can't afford any additional defections.

Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins, another pro-choice Republican moderate, has also vowed to withhold judgment pending a Thursday hearing into the allegations by Ford, the California professor who says Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when they were in high school.

Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy explains why he is suggesting the Kavanaugh-Ford may not take place.

Neither Collins nor Murkowski sits on the Judiciary Committee, which is now expecting to decide on Friday whether to recommend Kavanaugh's confirmation. The committee's approval is not required for Kavanaugh to advance to a vote of the full Senate and be confirmed; Clarence Thomas, who was accused of sexual harassment, did not secure the committee's approval in 1991.

TOP DEMOCRATIC SENATOR SAYS KAVANAUGH DOESN'T DESERVE DUE PROCESS BECAUSE HE'S A CONSERVATIVE*

[NOTE: NO, NOT TRUE! GO TO THE ARTICLE BELOW -http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/23/top-democrat-cites-kavanaughs-outcome-driven-legal-philosophy-as-reason-to-deny-him-due-process.html]

Despite Murkowski's apparent misgivings, the already-volatile political landscape surrounding Kavanaugh's confirmation could shift drastically again during Thursday's scheduled hearing.

Fox News expects the hearing to begin with opening statements from Grassley and Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the top Democrat on the panel.

Ford will give an opening statement with no time limit. Then, a five-minute round of questions for each senator will follow. They can turn over questioning to other counsel, and Republicans are expected to allow Rachel Mitchell, an experienced sex-crimes prosecutor, to handle at least some of their inquiries.

WHO IS RACHEL MITCHELL, THE SEX CRIMES PROSECUTOR HEADLINING THURSDAY'S HEARING?

Hannity Flashback to Biden Dismissing FBI Probes in 1991
(As recently as Monday night, Ford's attorneys were suggesting that it is inappropriate for outside counsel to ask questions, and they requested the name of the prosecutor.)

Next up, a statement by Kavanaugh with no time limits will precede a five-minute round of questioning for each senator, Fox News expects. Kavanaugh has repeatedly denied all allegations against him.

PURPORTED WITNESS WHO HAD BACKED FORD DELETES ONLINE ACCOUNT, ADMITS 'NO IDEA' IF ATTACK OCCURRED

Ford's legal team has requested that Mark Judge, a Kavanaugh friend Ford says was in the room when he allegedly assaulted her, be subpoenaed to testify. But Republicans have rejected that request, saying he has already provided a statement under penalty of a felony charge, denying any knowledge of the episode.

Feinstein, who received Ford's allegations in July but did not disclose them to her fellow senators or federal authorities until earlier this month, has called for the hearing to be delayed, citing a new allegation made against Kavanaugh on Sunday in The New Yorker.

The magazine published claims by Deborah Ramirez, a Yale classmate of Kavanaugh who says he exposed himself to her while drunk at a college party in the 1980s. Kavanaugh has denied that allegation, as well as Ford's.

Republicans have accused Feinstein of compromising Ford's desire for anonymity by sitting on the allegations and then leaking them at the last minute for political gain, and have suggested that the lawmaker simply wants to stall a vote on the nomination.

Republican lawmaker from South Carolina says he looks forward to supporting Kavanaugh. On 'Hannity,' Graham calls the allegations the 'worst low point' in the Senate.

Grassley responded to Feinstein in a letter on Tuesday: "I am not going to silence Dr. Ford after I promised and assured her that I would provide her a safe, comfortable and dignified opportunity to testify. ... There is no reason to delay the hearing any further."

On Tuesday, Feinstein admitted to Fox News that she has "no way of knowing" whether Ford will actually testify Thursday. Ford, through her legal team, has said several times this week she would show up at the hearing, following days of delays and setbacks last week in scheduling the proceedings.

The questioning is expected to center on Ford's claim that Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed and tried to remove her clothes at a Maryland house party when they were teenagers. Ford has said she is unable to recall who owned the house or why there was a gathering there. According to Ford, who says she eventually escaped to a bathroom, Kavanaugh covered her mouth briefly as music blared.

FEINSTEIN: 'I HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING' WHETHER FORD WILL SHOW AT THE HEARING

Ford told The Washington Post last week that there were a total of "four boys at the party" where the alleged episode occurred, and that two -- Kavanaugh and Judge -- were in the room during her attack. She said that her therapist made an error by indicating she told him in 2012 that all four boys were involved.

Those boys purportedly included Kavanaugh, Judge and another classmate, Patrick Smyth -- all of whom have since denied to the Senate Judiciary Committee, under penalty of felony, any knowledge of the particular party in question or any misconduct by Kavanaugh.

However, a woman, Leland Ingham Keyser, a former classmate of Ford's at the Holton-Arms all-girls school in Maryland, has since been identified by Ford as the fourth witness at the party. In a dramatic twist, Keyser, who has never been describable as a "boy," emerged Saturday night to say she doesn’t know Kavanaugh or remember being at the party with him.

"We’re in the Twilight Zone when it comes to Kavanaugh," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told Fox News on Capitol Hill Monday. Later that evening, in an interview with Fox News' "Hannity," Graham said the allegations against Kavanaugh are "collapsing."

Fox News' Chad Pergram and Samuel Chamberlain contributed to this report.

Gregg Re is an editor for Fox News. Follow him on Twitter @gregg_re.


“BECAUSE HE’S A CONSERVATIVE”* --

WELL, SIR, THIS ISN’T EXACTLY WHAT SENATOR HIRONA SAID. SHE SAID THAT SHE DOESN’T TRUST HIS ABILITY TO RESIST HIS (DEMONSTRABLE) BIAS IN JUDGMENT OR HIS HONESTY WHEN HE IS DEFENDING A CAUSE. IN OTHER WORDS, HIS “LEGAL PHILOSOPHY” IS TO “DO WHAT IT TAKES TO WIN.” HE VERY LIKELY BELIEVES THAT OPERATING ON PRINCIPLES IS WEAKNESS. SHE IS CALLING FOR AN FBI INVESTIGATION AND NOT TO “DENY KAVANAUGH DUE PROCESS;” SHE WANTS TO GIVE FORD HER HUMAN RIGHTS IN THIS SITUATION AS WELL, AND TO GET DOWN TO THE TRUTH. IF GETTING AT THE TRUTH IS DENYING HIM “DUE PROCESS,” THEN HE MUST BE DEPENDENT ON LIES TO MAKE HIS CASE. TRUTH IS WHAT AN FBI INVESTIGATION WOULD BRING OUT, AND THAT CAN ONLY BE A GOOD THING.

SEE http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/23/top-democrat-cites-kavanaughs-outcome-driven-legal-philosophy-as-reason-to-deny-him-due-process.html.

“Speaking to CNN's "State of the Union," Hirono, D-Hawaii, called for an independent FBI investigation of Ford's claims, before explaining why the presumption of innocence and due process should not apply to Kavanaugh's case.

"I put his denial in the context of everything that I know about him in terms of how he approaches his cases," Hirono told host Jake Tapper, in response to a question about whether Kavanaugh was entitled to a presumption of innocence. "His credibility is already very questionable in my mind. ... When I say that he's very outcome-driven, he has an ideological agenda, and I can sit here and talk to you about some of the cases that exemplify his, in my view, inability to be fair."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/23/top-democrat-cites-kavanaughs-outcome-driven-legal-philosophy-as-reason-to-deny-him-due-process.html.
CONFIRMATION OF JUDGE KAVANAUGH 3 days ago [NOTE: SEPT. 23, I ASSUME, IS THE DATE REFERENCED HERE.]
Top Democrat cites Kavanaugh's 'outcome-driven' legal philosophy as reason to deny him due process
Gregg Re By Gregg Re | Fox News

PHOTOGRAPH -- Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, said Sunday she plans to question Brett Kavanaugh about 'drinking and partying.' (AP, File)

Sen. Mazie Hirono on Sunday suggested that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's "outcome-driven" conservative judicial philosophy directly undermines the credibility of his denials that he sexually assaulted California professor Christine Ford at a house party more than three decades ago.

Speaking to CNN's "State of the Union," Hirono, D-Hawaii, called for an independent FBI investigation of Ford's claims, before explaining why the presumption of innocence and due process should not apply to Kavanaugh's case.

"I put his denial in the context of everything that I know about him in terms of how he approaches his cases," Hirono told host Jake Tapper, in response to a question about whether Kavanaugh was entitled to a presumption of innocence. "His credibility is already very questionable in my mind. ... When I say that he's very outcome-driven, he has an ideological agenda, and I can sit here and talk to you about some of the cases that exemplify his, in my view, inability to be fair."

WATCH: HIRONO LASHES OUT AT 'MEN IN THIS COUNTRY,' TELLS THEM TO 'SHUT UP AND STAND UP'

Hirono went on to say Kavanaugh is "very much against women's reproductive choice," characterizing his legal views as one of "many indications of lack of credibility."

CNN
✔
@CNN
CNN’s Jake Tapper: “Doesn’t Kavanaugh have the same presumption of innocence as anyone else in America?”

Sen. Mazie Hirono: “I put his denial in the context of everything that I know about him in terms of how he approaches his cases” #CNNSOTU https://cnn.it/2MVQV82

9:53 AM - Sep 23, 2018
5,347
7,605 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy

The top senator, who serves on the Judiciary Committee, left open the door to impeaching Kavanaugh if he is confirmed -- an idea floated by some Democrats, including Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., last week.

"I know that Maryland has eliminated the statute of limitations for kidnapping and sexual assault," she said. "So there may be an investigation along those lines. This is a situation that is not going to go away."

The Supreme Court has held that changes to statutes of limitations cannot apply retroactively to enable the prosecution of past offenses, pursuant the Ex Post Facto provision of the Constitution. However, the Senate can technically remove any federal judge based on a two-thirds vote, regardless of whether a specific crime has been committed.

"This is a situation that is not going to go away."

- Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii
KEY DETAILS SHIFT IN FORD'S STORY, AS PURPORTED WITNESSES LINE UP TO DISPUTE HER VERSION OF EVENTS

All of the individuals that Ford has said were at the house during the alleged assault -- including Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, classmate Patrick Smyth, and her own longtime friend, Leland Ingham Keyser -- have denied knowledge of the episode, under penalty of felony, in interviews with the Judiciary Committee. Ford has said she does not recall who owned the house where the alleged attack occurred, nor why there was a gathering there or exactly when the incident occurred.

Nevertheless, at a fiery press conference last week, the Hawaii Democrat blasted “the men in this country,” blaming them for sexual assault and urging them to “just shut up and step up." She added: “I expect the men in this country and the men on this committee, because we all signed onto this letter, to demand an FBI investigation."

That led Republicans to accuse Hirono and other Democrats of hypocrisy over the case of U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison, who is running for attorney general of Minnesota. Ellison has received only muted criticism from top Democrats, and the Democratic National Committee weighed in on the abuse allegations against him for the first time only hours before polls closed in his key primary race last month.

Karen Monahan claims to have been smeared, threatened and isolated from the Democratic Party.

KEITH ELLISON SAYS ACCUSER FABRICATED DOMESTIC ABUSE STORY, WARNS OTHERS MAY 'COOK UP' ALLEGATIONS

"I've been very clear that I make no excuses for anyone who engages in this kind of behavior," Hirono said. "As far as Keith Ellison, these allegations need to be investigated and appropriate action taken."

Hirono then pivoted immediately back to Kavanaugh's case, saying she wants to be "laser-focused" on the ongoing nomination battle.

"I do not want to have a person on the Supreme Court who doesn't seem to be able to apply the facts in ways that do not meet his outcome-driven agenda," she said.

A tentative agreement has been reached to have Ford testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, although key details remain uncertain as Republicans continue to accuse Ford's team of delaying the process.

In a letter last week, Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, told Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., that he "cannot overstate how disappointed" he was that Feinstein had kept Ford's allegations a secret for weeks after learning about them in July. Ford went public only after news of the allegations leaked to The Intercept -- which Republicans have suggested was orchestrated as a last-minute effort to derail Kavanaugh's confirmation just days before a key vote in the Judiciary Committee.

HIRONO TOOK CAMPAIGN CASH FROM SENATOR WHO ADMITTED HITTING HIS WIFE

Now that a hearing has been set for Thursday, Hirono told Tapper that she is interested in questioning Kavanaugh about "what kind of environment it was in high school -- apparently there was a lot of drinking and partying going on."

Earlier this month, Hirono pressed Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearings at length about whether he was aware of inappropriate behavior by former 9th Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski when he clerked for Kozinski from 1991 to 1992. Kozinski abruptly retired last year after several woman who had worked as law clerks or colleagues accused him of sexual misconduct that included touching, inappropriate sexual comments and forced viewings of pornography in his chambers.

Hirono, who repeatedly has asked other judicial nominees whether they ever sexually harassed anyone, noted that Kavanaugh and Kozinski had kept in touch after his clerkship, with Kozinski recommending Kavanaugh during his 2006 confirmation hearings for his current job on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

"You saw nothing, you heard nothing, and you obviously said nothing," Hirono said, even as Kavanaugh denied being aware of any misconduct by Kozinski and said he would have reported it if he had known.

Hirono also directly asked Kavanaugh during that hearing whether he had ever committed acts of sexual misconduct as a "legal adult." She told Tapper on Sunday she did not inquire about juvenile behavior because those records, she said, often remain sealed -- but she maintained that she was still interested in whether Kavanaugh had attacked Ford, as alleged, when he was 17.

Gregg Re is an editor for Fox News. Follow him on Twitter @gregg_re.



FOX NEWS, IN THIS ARTICLE, JUST KEEPS SLINGING ALLEGATIONS AT DEMOCRATS IN GENERAL. WHO IS THIS "HIGHLY PLACED MEMBER OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMUNITY?" AND WHAT IS "THE INGRAHAM ANGLE?" TAKE A LOOK:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/19/dem-sen-hirono-lashes-out-at-men-in-this-country-urging-them-to-shut-up-and-step-up-amid-kavanaugh-claims.html
Dem Sen. Hirono lashes out at 'men in this country' urging them to 'shut up and step up' amid Kavanaugh claims
CONFIRMATION OF JUDGE KAVANAUGH September 19th
By Brooke Singman | Fox News

Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono blasted “the men in this country,” blaming them for sexual assault and urged them to “just shut up and step up” amid allegations of misconduct against President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

At a press conference Tuesday evening, the Hawaii Democrat made the sweeping generalization against “the men” in the U.S. for “perpetuating” sexual assault.

“I expect the men in this country and the men on this committee, because we all signed onto this letter, to demand an FBI investigation,” Hirono said, referring to a request that the FBI investigate the claims made by Kavanaugh’s accuser, Christine Blasey Ford.

TRUMP SAYS 'WE'LL HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION' ON KAVANAUGH'S FUTURE IF ACCUSER GIVES 'CREDIBLE' TESTIMONY

Republican senators seek to move forward with the Supreme Court nomination if the sexual assault accuser doesn't testify; Mike Emanuel reports from Capitol Hill.
“But really, guess who is perpetuating all of these kinds of actions? It’s the men in this country. And I just want to say to the men in this country: just shut up and step up, do the right thing for a change,” Hirono said.

“Not only do women, like Dr. Ford, who bravely comes forward, need to be heard, but they need to be believed,” Hirono added. “We cannot continue the victimization and the smearing of someone like Dr. Ford.”

Ford’s identity was revealed in a Washington Post article published over the weekend, following an anonymous letter obtained by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., alleging sexual assault. The California-based professor said that Kavanaugh, 36 years ago while in high school, pinned her down, tried to remove her bathing suit and put his hand over her mouth when she attempted to scream. Ford alleged that she was in the room with Kavanaugh and another man, who has been identified as Mark Judge.

Both Kavanaugh and Judge denied the allegations.

FBI already said they can't investigate the accusation against Kavanaugh; former FBI national spokesperson weighs in on 'The Ingraham Angle.'
“This is a completely false allegation. I have never done anything like what the accuser describes—to her or to anyone,” Kavanaugh said in a statement Monday. “Because this never happened, I had no idea who was making the accusation until she identified herself [Sunday.]”

ELIZABETH WARREN SLAMMED OVER EDITING OF KAVANAUGH VIDEO

The Senate Judiciary Committee invited both Ford and Kavanaugh to testify in either a public or private setting over the allegations.

Kavanaugh said he was “willing” to speak to the committee “in any way” deemed appropriate to “refute this false allegation” and to defend his “integrity.”

Ford’s attorney Monday suggested she would be willing to testify before the committee under oath, but has yet to officially accept the invitation to appear before the panel.

Ford has said she doesn’t want to appear until after an FBI investigation takes place.

A highly-placed law enforcement source told Fox News on Wednesday that there will not be an FBI investigation into the allegations leveled at Kavanaugh.

The source told Fox News there cannot be a criminal investigation, because there is no crime alleged where the statute of limitations hasn't run. The source also said there are no allegations of a federal crime.

KAVANAUGH ACCUSER CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD DEMANDS 'FULL INVESTIGATION' BY FBI BEFORE TESTIFYING, IN LETTER FROM HER LAWYERS

The FBI only handles background check investigations, the source said, and should they find information, they would pass it along.

"This is a political issue, not a law enforcement one," the source told Fox News.

The committee has already delayed Kavanaugh's confirmation vote, which was originally scheduled for Thursday. A hearing is now scheduled for Monday.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said that the hearing to examine the allegations set for Monday could be canceled if Ford does not accept the committee's invitation. Grassley said that his office has reached out several times to Ford and her attorneys to discuss her allegations, but has not received a response.

Fox News' John Roberts contributed to this report.

Brooke Singman is a Politics Reporter for Fox News. Follow her on Twitter at @brookefoxnews.


I DO WONDER HOW MANY PEOPLE REALLY HAVE KEPT CALENDARS THIS FAR BACK IN TIME. WHY DO THAT? KNOWLEDGE OF GUILT AND THE NEED TO PRESENT A SELF-DEFENSE? READ: 1982 calendar entries from Brett Kavanaug

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/26/politics/julie-swetnick-allegation-kavanaugh/index.html
New allegations against Kavanaugh submitted to Senate committee
CNN Digital Rebranding 2014
Maeve Reston Sara Sidner-Profile-Image
By Maeve Reston and Sara Sidner, CNN
Updated 3:58 PM ET, Wed September 26, 2018

VIDEO – KEY GOP SENATOR: FBI PROBE OF KAVANAUGH WOULD CLEAR UP QUESTIONS

(CNN)A third woman has presented the Senate Judiciary Committee with allegations of inappropriate behavior by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, accusing him of sexually aggressive behavior at alcohol-fueled parties when he was in high school.

The new accuser, Julie Swetnick, was identified by her lawyer Michael Avenatti on Twitter Wednesday morning. In a sworn statement prepared by Avenatti and submitted to committee, Swetnick said that Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge were present at a party where she was drugged and "gang raped."

Swetnick did not identify Kavanaugh or Judge as her attacker in that incident. She said in her statement that there are two witnesses who can attest to her account, but she has not identified them publicly.

Senate Judiciary chairman: No delay to Kavanaugh hearing despite new allegations

Kavanaugh's first public accuser, Christine Blasey Ford -- who will testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday -- alleges that Kavanaugh and Judge, who both attended Georgetown Preparatory School, steered her into an upstairs bedroom at a high school party in 1982 where she says Kavanaugh put his hand over her mouth and attempted to take her clothes off on the bed before she escaped.

Kavanaugh, who will also testify on Thursday, has emphatically denied the allegations by Ford and a second woman who said he engaged in sexually inappropriate behavior with her at Yale. An attorney for Deborah Ramirez, the second accuser, said Tuesday on CNN that Republicans on the committee did not participate in a scheduled phone call earlier that day to discuss her allegations.

The White House issued an emphatic denial by Kavanaugh responding to Swetnick's allegation.

"This is ridiculous and from the Twilight Zone. I don't know who this is and this never happened," Kavanaugh said.

Increasingly worried, Trump takes over Kavanaugh defense

Judge's lawyer, Barbara Van Gelder, said in a statement, "Mr. Judge vehemently denies the allegations contained in the Swetnick affidavit."

In an interview with Fox News on Monday, the Supreme Court nominee said that he never sexually assaulted anyone and was a virgin through high school and for "many years after."

Swetnick, who attended Gaithersburg High School in Maryland, says she attended "well over ten" parties where Kavanaugh was present.

She says she witnessed Kavanaugh "drink excessively and engage in highly inappropriate conduct, including being overly aggressive with girls and not taking "No" for an answer. "This conduct included the fondling and grabbing girls without their consent," the sworn statement says.

Ford, Kavanaugh seek to bolster cases with new documents

In the sworn statement, she also alleges that Kavanaugh engaged "in abusive and physically aggressive behavior towards girls, including pressing girls against him without their consent, 'grinding' against girls and attempting to remove or shift girls' clothing to expose private body parts."

Swetnick says that in 1981 and 1982, she became aware of efforts by Judge, Kavanaugh and others to "spike the punch at house parties" so as to "cause girls to lose their inhibitions and their ability to say 'No.'"

She said at some parties boys lined up by a bedroom to assault incapacitated girls. Swetnick claims that the boys in the lineup included Kavanaugh and Judge, but does not say that they assaulted the girls, or the names of other witnesses who could corroborate it.

While Swetnick said she is aware of other witnesses who can attest to the truthfulness of her statements, she has not identified those witnesses.

READ: 1982 calendar entries from Brett Kavanaugh

She said she told at least two other people about the "gang rape" attack on her shortly after the incident, but she has not identified those people.

According to a committee aide, in an email to Avenatti on Wednesday, Republican committee staff said that "yesterday committee investigators interviewed Judge Kavanaugh again, under penalty of felony. Committee investigators specifically asked Judge Kavanaugh about all pending accusations, in specificity. This included your then-anonymous allegations and questions. He unequivocally denied all of the allegations, testifying that there was not a kernel of truth in any of these allegations. We have a transcribed interview. Judge Kavanaugh understood that he testified under penalty of felony, subject to up to 5 years of imprisonment. The Ranking Member's staff sat through the interview."

The Republican committee staff also said that they will do a follow-up interview with Kavanaugh Wednesday.

Trump calls new allegations 'ridiculous'

President Donald Trump initially declined to answer a question about the latest allegations against Kavanaugh as he departed the United Nations on Wednesday. Trump spoke briefly on North Korea and China, but kept walking out of the building when the Kavanaugh question was asked.

But the explosive allegations quickly prompted a fight between Trump and his longtime critic, Avenatti, whom he called "a third rate lawyer" and "a total low-life" on Twitter.

Avenatti responded in kind, calling Trump a "habitual liar and complete narcissist who also is a disgrace as a president and an embarrassment to our nation."

Speaking later Wednesday afternoon, Trump did not mention the new accuser by name in comments to the press, but he called the new allegations "ridiculous."

Trump set for rare news conference amid Kavanaugh, Rosenstein swirl

When a reporter asked Trump whether the three women who have accused Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct are lying, Trump curtly replied: "What's your next question?"

The President asserted that the new allegations are part of a Democratic "con game" to derail Kavanaugh's nomination.

"The Democrats are playing this game that's disgraceful," Trump said during an event with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. "It's disgraceful to this country."

"If you look at this lawyer that came out he's a low-life," Trump said of Avenatti, who is considering a run for president as a Democrat in 2020. "He's a Democrat lawyer. Not a very good one."

Kavanaugh's attorney, Beth Wilkinson, said the Supreme Court nominee is outraged and mystified by the new allegations from Swetnick.

"He has never met this woman. He doesn't know Ms. Swetnick," Wilkinson said in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "He didn't go to parties with her," she said, noting that she has spoken to other Kavanaugh high school friends and classmates.

Why the next 24 hours may be the most consequential of Trump's presidency so far

"No one knows this woman. No one knows, remembers, seeing her at any of the parties that they attended," Wilkinson said. "Judge Kavanaugh doesn't know her. This never happened, and he's said that over and over and over again that he never engaged in any of that behavior."

Citing a concern that has been voiced by at least one senator, Wilkinson also questioned why anyone who had witnessed "gang rape" or boys drugging girls at parties would not have immediately reported that to police.

Wilkinson and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham have questioned why Swetnick would have continued going to 10 parties where "gang rape" occurred, given that she and her friends would have been in danger.

"There's no excuse for her lawyer not going straight to the police. There's no one stopping any investigation, and any lawyer worth their salt would put their client's interest first and go straight to the police or the FBI," Wilkinson said.

Earlier this week after announcing that his client would be coming forward with new allegations against Kavanaugh, Avenatti said he had requested that the FBI investigate Swetnick's claims and he has not ruled out going to Maryland police to ask for an investigation.

Who is Deborah Ramirez, the second Kavanaugh accuser?

Avenatti has warned senators not to attack Swetnick's credibility, saying that his client passed multiple government security clearances over the course of her career, which included working at the Department of Justice, the US Mint, and the State Department.

"She is 100 percent credible and when the American people hear from her, they will determine, as I have, that she is to be believed," Avenatti said outside the federal courthouse in Los Angeles earlier this week where he participated in a hearing in the case involving one of his other clients, the adult film star Stormy Daniels, who says she had a sexual encounter with Trump and is suing the President for defamation. Trump has denied he had an affair with Daniels.

Avenatti said Swetnick would take a lie detector test, if Kavanaugh also agrees to take the test.

"This woman is showing incredible courage and bravery just like Dr. Ford," Avenatti said, referring to Kavanaugh's first accuser.

Hearing with Kavanaugh, accuser still scheduled to go on Thursday despite new allegations

Wednesday was the first time that Trump has ever mentioned Avenatti by name, even though Avenatti has been one of the President's most vocal critics during the time that he has represented Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford.

Avenatti responded to Trump's insults in a series of tweets.

"Trump doesn't even know anything about my background," Avenatti said. "Knows nothing about my history of over $1 Billion in verdicts and settlements. I have represented Republicans and Democrats. I have represented hard working people throughout this nation."

Amidst the turmoil over his nominee, Trump said he is confident that Kavanaugh will be confirmed to the Supreme Court in the coming days.

"I think it's really working out very well," he said. "I think people are seeing what a disgrace these Democrat senators are."

This story is breaking and will be updated.

CNN's Kevin Liptak and Ariane de Vogue contributed to this report.


FOR THOSE WHO LIKE TO KEEP SCORE ON WHO'S WINNING OR LOSING, THIS IS AN INTERESTING ARTICLE.

https://www.vox.com/2018/9/26/17902190/brett-kavanaugh-confirmation-vote-count-senator
These senators will make or break Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote
Watch these four Republican and five Democratic senators very closely in the coming days.
By Tara Golshan and Li Zhou Sep 26, 2018, 2:40pm EDT

PHOTOGRAPH -- Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) is among four Republican senators who seem the most likely to vote against Brett Kavanaugh. Drew Angerer/Getty Images

In spite of the much-anticipated Thursday hearing on allegations of sexual misconduct against Brett Kavanaugh, the Senate is still expected to take up a vote on his confirmation to the Supreme Court in the coming days.

But there are reports that Republicans are currently short of the 50 votes they need to confirm Kavanaugh’s appointment.

Currently, 43 Republicans have said they will vote in favor of Kavanaugh. Eight remain undecided, saying they will wait for the hearing Thursday, when Kavanaugh and one of his accusers will testify to the allegations of sexual assault. Among those eight, only four are considered to be genuinely up in the air: Sens. Lisa Murkowski (AK), Susan Collins (ME), Jeff Flake (AZ) and Bob Corker (TN).

There are also some big questions around how Democrats will vote. There are currently 10 Democrats running for reelection in red states, three of whom voted in favor of the last Trump-appointed Supreme Court justice, Neil Gorsuch: Sens. Joe Donnelly (IN), Heidi Heitkamp (ND), and Joe Manchin (WV). Whether the allegations of sexual misconduct give those Democrats enough cover with voters in November to stand in lockstep with the Democratic Party remains to be seen. Kavanaugh is historically unpopular — but has left Americans divided on party lines.

One month ago, Kavanaugh seemed almost guaranteed a seat on the nation’s highest court. But in the past two weeks, three women have come forward with allegations of sexual assault and misconduct against him, all dating back to his high school and college days.

Christine Blasey Ford, a Palo Alto University professor, said Kavanaugh pinned her down at a party in high school and tried to take off her clothes and force himself on her. Deborah Ramirez, who went to Yale with Kavanaugh, said he exposed himself to her at a party during freshman year, thrusting his penis in her face. Kavanaugh has denied both allegations aggressively. Ford will testify to her allegations in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday.

The day before the hearing, Stormy Daniels lawyer Michael Avenatti posted a sworn affidavit from Washington, DC, resident Julie Swetnick, who says she witnessed Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge drink excessively and harass and assault women at high school parties.

Already Republican leaders seem eager to confirm Kavanaugh and move on; they’ve spent the past week saying the allegations are part of a Democratic “smear campaign” and defending Kavanaugh’s character. But with Republicans in control of just 51 seats, Kavanaugh can only afford to lose the support of one senator.

A lot comes down to Thursday.

The four Republican senators who could make or break Kavanaugh’s nomination
Senate Lawmakers Address The Media After Their Weekly Policy Luncheons
Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) said Republicans should listen to the accusers before deciding their votes. Aaron P. Bernstein/Getty Images

1) Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK): Murkowski is seen as perhaps one of the biggest swing votes for Kavanaugh’s confirmation. This week, she emphasized the importance of listening to the accusers.

“We are now in a place where it’s not about whether or not Judge Kavanaugh is qualified,” she told the New York Times Monday night. “It is about whether or not a woman who has been a victim at some point in her life is to be believed.”

On Tuesday, she also told reporters that she sees the merit of an independent FBI investigation into the allegations, something Senate Democrats and the accusers have called for. “It would sure clear up all the questions, wouldn’t it?” Murkowski said.

Even before these allegations, Murkowski’s vote was uncertain. She is one of the few in the Republican Senate conference who supports abortion rights — an issue that was raised heavily during Kavanaugh’s initial hearings.

She has also been under pressure from Alaska’s Native population to reject Kavanaugh’s nomination, out of concern for his positions on health care and American Indian tribes’ rights. A group of Alaskan state lawmakers with a focus on tribal and rural representation, as well as the Alaska Federation of Natives, which represents 20 percent of the state’s population, have come out against Kavanaugh. The president of the AFN reportedly has been meeting with Murkowski throughout the confirmation process.

2) Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ): If not for the allegations of sexual misconduct, Flake, a retiring anti-Trump conservative, would likely be an easy vote for Kavanaugh. He is on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and during the hearings, he spoke glowingly of Kavanaugh’s record — though he did seem to have misgivings about Kavanaugh’s record on executive power.

With Ford’s and Ramirez’s allegations, however, Flake has made himself out to be a more concerned party. He, along with Murkowski, Collins, and Corker, called for the Senate Judiciary Committee to delay its vote recommending Kavanaugh and allow for Ford to testify.

On Tuesday, Flake raised the stakes of his vote even higher and said, “Obviously, if you believe the charges are true, then you vote no.” During floor remarks on Wednesday, he appeared to suggest that he was planning to weigh Ford and Kavanaugh’s testimony before deciding how he’ll vote.

“I will have to listen to the testimony before I make up my mind about the testimony,” he said. “I hope that tomorrow’s hearing gives us some guidance on how we are to vote.”

Essentially, Flake seemed to say that by Thursday, he has to decide whether Kavanaugh is a liar, or whether both of these accusers are. Flake has worked to establish himself as having a moral high ground in the age of Trump, announcing his retirement with a scathing speech denouncing Trump’s ethics. Whether that strain carries through the confirmation process remains a major question.

3) Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME): Collins, like Murkowski, has been pegged as a potential swing vote since Kavanaugh was nominated, in large part due to her support of abortion rights. But Collins has seemed largely comfortable with Kavanaugh on that front, saying she was confident he would not overturn Roe v. Wade, which guarantees a right to abortion in the US.

On the allegations of sexual misconduct, Collins has been clear that she believes Ford and Ramirez should be heard. She called on Ford to testify and said Ramirez should talk under oath with committee staff members as well. But Collins has been reluctant to say with certainty whether she finds their allegations credible.

Most recently, she floated what appears to be a right-wing conspiracy theory about Ford’s yearbook with reporters after images of Kavanaugh’s high school yearbook page were released.

“There are so many rumors that there are issues with Christine Ford’s yearbook as well,” Collins said. “I don’t know whether that’s accurate or not. I don’t know what to make of someone’s high school yearbook.”

It’s not clear specifically what Collins was referring to when she said “rumors.” But Alex Jones of Infowars has spread uncorroborated photographs of what appears to be a yearbook from Holton Arms, Ford’s alma mater, and called Ford a “hussy” in her high school days.

Asked if Collins was talking about the Alex Jones “rumors,” Collins’s spokesperson said:

“Senator Collins was referencing the rumors in circulation about both Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford. She believes that Dr. Ford’s allegations are serious and should be heard by the Senate Judiciary Committee. ”

Members Of Congress Return To Capitol Hill Amidst New Kavanaugh Accusations
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) is among the Republicans whose vote on Kavanaugh has been uncertain from the beginning. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
4) Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN): Corker is also on the list of potential “no” votes, in large part because of his early calls for a hearing and for Ford to testify.

However, in the past week, he has said that he has no reason not to believe Kavanaugh’s denials and emphasized that he does not know Ford. He also said he does not see a way to investigate 35-year-old claims.

There are still undecided red-state Democrats
5) Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND): The North Dakota senator is one of three who voted for Gorsuch last spring. While her office told Vox’s Dylan Scott early this week that she remains undecided, Heitkamp has also been vocal about the importance of Ford’s testimony and of listening to women who have made allegations about sexual misconduct.

“It takes courage for any woman to speak up about sexual assault, and we need to respect Prof. Ford by listening to her and hearing her story,” Heitkamp wrote in a statement on Twitter.

On the one hand, Heitkamp is among a group of red-state lawmakers who are in the fight of their political lives in this upcoming midterm election — and Republicans have been hammering her on the Kavanaugh vote as a wedge issue that could influence more conservative voters. On the other hand, the sexual misconduct allegations have actually provided red-state Democrats the political cover they need to justify a vote against him.

“North Dakotans expect more of their elected officials than partisan judgements,” Heitkamp said in a previous statement about Kavanaugh’s nomination. “Politics should not be part of the vetting process or the decision-making process.”

6) Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-IN): Donnelly is another Democrat who broke ranks last year to back Gorsuch and could do the same this time around. He’s previously called for a delay in the Judiciary Committee’s vote in the wake of Ford’s allegations, however, and he’s also said that both Ford’s and Ramirez’s accusations warrant an FBI investigation.

“The allegations raised by Dr. Ford and Ms. Ramirez against Judge Kavanaugh are serious, merit further review, and I believe should be investigated by the FBI,” Donnelly said in a statement. “I will continue to get as much information as I can, including by following Thursday’s scheduled hearing.”

Given his emphasis on the hearing, it’s likely that his impressions of Ford’s and Kavanaugh’s testimonies will be a key factor in how he ultimately decides to vote.

It’s also important to note that Donnelly is an anti-abortion Democrat, so he may not object to Kavanaugh over fears of overturning Roe v. Wade.

Sens Collins And Donnelly Introduce Forty Hours Is Full Time Act
Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-IN) is running in a competitive Senate race where he’s been trying to prove himself as willing to vote with Republicans. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
7) Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV): Manchin is the third Democrat who crossed party lines in the Gorsuch vote. He’s known for his independent streak and previously quipped that he is not susceptible to being whipped by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer in order to vote a certain way. “I’ll be 71 years old in August, you’re going to whip me? Kiss my you know what,” Manchin said earlier this summer.

Manchin has also said he thinks Kavanaugh deserves a “right to clear himself” during Thursday’s hearing. “All this is extremely serious and we take it very serious, but again these are allegations that are made and they have to come forth and prove their statements and he has a right to clear himself,” Manchin said on Tuesday, according to a report from Talking Points Memo.

Apart from the sexual misconduct allegations, Manchin has expressed concerns about the possible effect Kavanaugh could have on protections afforded to people with preexisting conditions guaranteed by the Affordable Care Act. Given a Texas lawsuit that’s winding its way through the courts, it’s very possible that there will be another challenge to the ACA that the Supreme Court will have to consider.

Manchin has said he’s particularly interested in how Kavanaugh would rule on this matter. “The Supreme Court will ultimately decide if nearly 800,000 West Virginians with pre-existing conditions will lose their healthcare,” he’s said. “This decision will directly impact almost 40 percent of my state, so I’m very interested in his position on protecting West Virginians with pre-existing conditions.”

8) Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT): Tester may not have voted for Gorsuch, but he is among the slate of Democrats who are seen as vulnerable in this year’s upcoming midterm elections. A vote against Kavanaugh could be levied against him as November approaches — even if the effectiveness of such an attack has been diffused somewhat. Tester has said the sexual misconduct allegations are one of several issues on a “long list” that he’d like to talk over with Kavanaugh. Others include abortion rights and campaign finance.

“Look, we’re paying close attention to the allegations. I’ve got other issues too that I want to talk to him if we can ever get an in-person [meeting] with him,” Tester said, according to the Washington Examiner. “We’ve got a long list. And these allegations will also be a part of it.”

Tester has emphasized, too, that he thinks additional pieces of Kavanaugh’s full record should be released and pushed for a more comprehensive trove of documents in August. “I pledged to Montanans that I would thoroughly review Judge Kavanaugh’s record by studying his perspective on the laws of our nation, our Constitution, our civil liberties, and the values that are important to Montanans,” he said in a statement at the time.

Florida Democratic Gubernatorial Candidate Andrew Gillum Joins State Dems At Orlando Rally
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) expressed frustration that he couldn’t get a meeting with Kavanaugh. Joe Raedle/Getty Images

9) Bill Nelson (D-FL): Like Tester, Nelson voted against Gorsuch and has largely expressed concern with Kavanaugh’s nomination — especially with how McConnell has tried to push through the confirmation process even in light of multiple allegations of sexual misconduct. He’s called for an investigation into the allegations.

Nelson, too, says he could not schedule a meeting with the nominee. “I have tried to see him for months. That is the respectful thing to do. And I am tired of waiting,” he said last week. “I’m ready to make my decision next week and especially if they deny me access to the judge.”

That said, unexpectedly, Nelson is among the most vulnerable Democratic senators in the 2018 midterm cycle. He has consistently polled within the margin of error against Florida Gov. Rick Scott, in a state that’s remained bullish on President Trump.


I LIVED IN WASHINGTON WHEN BORK WAS BEING CONSIDERED. I REMEMBER THAT HE WAS VERY UNPOPULAR, AND THAT THE DEMOCRATS HAD PUT UP AT LEAST ONE POSTER ON A STREET LAMP POLE. IT SAID "ROAST BORK."

https://www.vox.com/2018/9/26/17896126/bork-kavanaugh-supreme-court-conservatives-republicans
“Borking,” explained: why a failed Supreme Court nomination in 1987 matters
Robert Bork’s Supreme Court hearings changed politics — but not how you might think.
By Jane Coastonjane.coaston@vox.com Sep 26, 2018, 2:00pm EDT

PHOTOGRAPH -- Robert Bork at his Supreme Court confirmation hearing on September 18, 1987. CNP/Getty Images

As allegations of sexual assault and misconduct swirl around Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, many conservatives are deeply concern that Kavanaugh is being “Borked” — a reference to the failed 1987 nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court.

According to Merriam-Webster, “to Bork” means “to attack or defeat (a nominee or candidate for public office) unfairly through an organized campaign of harsh public criticism or vilification.” And as conservative pundit George Will (who served as an usher at Bork’s wedding) wrote in his Sunday column for the Washington Post, the allegations against Kavanaugh are a perfect example of a “Borking” in progress:

Hence, the confirmation process has followed the crumbling, descending path the rest of American politics has taken into the depths of cynicism, faux outrage and pandering to the parties’ hysterical bases. The utter emptiness of everything is an intellectual vacuum into which have flooded histrionics.

To a generation of Republicans, the legacy of Bork was one in which, as the Wall Street Journal described in August, “character assassination proved an effective tactic” and “special interest groups” discovered “they could demonize judicial nominees based solely on their worldview.”

The political polarization that came to epitomize Bork’s nomination remains just as visceral, if not more so, as Kavanaugh’s nomination is debated. But Bork’s legacy, and the idea of “Borking,” has been misconstrued.

In Bork’s case, there were real and valid reasons for many Americans to not want him on the Supreme Court, based on his rulings in cases as a Circuit Court judge, his views and actions as solicitor general, and his past statements and writings. In his writings, he argued that only political speech was protected by the First Amendment; as a circuit court judge, he ruled against the right to privacy and in favor of a company whose employees had undergone sterilization procedures to keep their jobs. He wrote extensively in opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and even argued that a poll tax struck down by the Supreme Court was just a “very small tax.”


And today, Brett Kavanaugh is facing serious questions about his history with women, which is incredibly relevant to the work he’d do on the Supreme Court.

Plus, Bork’s failed nomination to the Supreme Court was more than even these factors. He was one of the first Supreme Court nominees to endure televised hearings that gave senators the chance to speak to the American people en masse, and he was the subject of heavy (and involved) questioning — questioning for which he was woefully unprepared.

Robert Bork wasn’t the victim of “character assassination.” Robert Bork was the victim, ultimately, of Robert Bork.

How Bork was “Borked”
On July 1, 1987, Ted Kennedy, then a senator and a leading light within the Democratic Party, took to the Senate floor to denounce Robert Bork, whom Ronald Reagan had just nominated for the Supreme Court. In his remarks, Kennedy said that adding Bork to the Supreme Court would force women into back-alley abortions and black Americans back to segregated lunch counters, adding that with Bork, “the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is — and is often the only — protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.”


At the time of Kennedy’s speech, Bork was a circuit judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit (where he served from 1982 to 1988). Before serving on the court, Bork, a graduate of the University of Chicago and a former Marine, had taught law at Yale Law School, where his students would include both Bill and Hillary Clinton, as well as Anita Hill and future California Gov. Jerry Brown. Suffice it to say, he was very well known in the upper circles of American conservatism.

And in stark contrast to Kennedy, many of those conservatives were thrilled about Reagan’s choice. To many Republicans, particularly religious Americans who leaned right, Bork’s rulings in cases like Dronenburg v. Zech — a case in which Bork and future Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had ruled that there was no “Constitutional right to engage in homosexual conduct” and thus no right to privacy for it — provided hope that putting Bork on the Court would move the Court further in their direction (though Reagan himself pitched Bork as a “moderate,” which in turn enraged conservatives at the Justice Department).

But many on the right, including those who laughed at Kennedy’s doom-and-gloom portrayal of the nominee, widely underestimated just how much liberals would fight back against Bork’s nomination; to them, the mere idea of Bork on the Court was a terrifying one.

In their view, this was not just a man who had ruled against a constitutional right to privacy for gay people — raising concerns that his views on privacy would lead to the overturning of Roe v. Wade — but also the man who ruled in 1984 in favor of a lead pigment company whose employees had undergone voluntary sterilization in order to keep their well-paying jobs. (Bork ruled that making sterilization a policy for a job didn’t violate the Occupational Safety and Health Act.)


He also believed that government-sponsored school prayer did not violate the First Amendment, and in 1985, he said in response to a Baptist minister who referenced a Jewish friend who had been required to engage in Christian prayer in a public school, “So what? I’m sure he got over it.”

During his confirmation hearing to be solicitor general, Bork had also seemingly argued in favor of a Virginia poll tax that had been struck down by the Court in 1966, saying, “It was a very small tax, it was not discriminatory, and I doubt that it had much impact on the welfare of the nation one way or the other.” That same year, he also wrote in opposition to the Court’s ruling against the use of literacy tests in voting.

And there was more: Bork described the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as state coercion, writing in 1963 that the law would cause a loss of “personal liberty” and put forward “a principle of unsurpassed ugliness.” On the First Amendment, Bork wrote in 1971 that the Constitution only protects political speech, adding, “There is no basis for judicial intervention to protect any other form of expression, be it scientific, literary or that variety of expression we call obscene or pornographic.”

Liberal groups including the AFL-CIO and People for the American Way responded with an outpouring of direct advertising aimed at stopping Bork, like this ad, voiced by actor Gregory Peck. “If Robert Bork wins a seat on the Supreme Court, it’ll be for life. His life, and yours,” Peck intones.


The reasoning behind Bork’s judicial rulings and viewpoints is straightforward and, to many conservatives, extremely logical: Bork was a constitutional originalist who believed that the Constitution and the laws it set in place should be interpreted the same way they were when the document was first written. And had Bork been able to adequately explain his viewpoints to the Senate Judiciary Committee, and to America, through that lens, perhaps his nomination would have been successful.

But that’s not what happened.

“But he was a genius, the Einstein of the law”
Until 1955, it wasn’t unusual for Supreme Court nominees to not answer questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee about their views or rulings, or to not even show up for their hearings at all and still get on the Court. Televised Supreme Court nomination hearings only began in 1981. And in 1986, the year before Bork’s nomination, the Senate finally agreed to televise its proceedings.

Why does this matter? Because only with televised Senate hearings did the American people see Sen. Ted Kennedy call Bork a danger to American life, and only with televised Supreme Court nomination hearings did Americans see Sen. Joe Biden, then the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, perform what the New Yorker called “a meticulous dissection” of Bork’s career.

Before his nomination, Biden had said that he would support Bork, seeming to reject Kennedy’s rhetoric. (He also refused to subpoena Bork’s video rental records to see if he’d rented any pornographic films.) That gave many conservatives a great deal of confidence about Bork’s chances of getting on the Court, though, worryingly, a committee within the American Bar Association announced that while it would give Bork its highest rating, its members were split on his qualifications for the role.

But Sen. Orrin Hatch, one of Bork’s biggest defenders, said that Bork would do “very well” in televised hearings, adding, “I think those who have been vilifying him are going to have to eat a lot of words.”

Perhaps the most confident about his chances for the Court was Bork himself, who did very little preparation for his hearings. Typically, Supreme Court nominees go through a process known as “murder boards,” where they are put through extensive questioning similar to what they’ll face from the Senate Judiciary Committee. But Bork didn’t, partly because his allies, like his old friend Antonin Scalia, told him he was so qualified for the position that he wouldn’t need the preparation. One friend who helped Bork through the process would later say, “It was a mistake not to make him do more murder boards. I should have rolled him on that. But he was a genius, the Einstein of the law.’’

And arguably, that’s where everything went wrong for Bork and his allies. Before the hearings, a majority of Americans polled by the New York Times and CBS had no opinion of Bork one way or the other. But the hearings, which began on September 15, 1987, were an absolute disaster for Bork, whom Tom Shales, the television critic for the Washington Post, described as “cold-hearted and condescending.” He added, “He looked and talked like a man who would throw the book at you — and maybe the whole country.” (You can watch Bork’s Supreme Court nomination hearings in full on YouTube.)

In response to a question about the sterilization case, Bork said of the women who had undergone sterilization in order to keep their jobs, ‘’I suppose that they were glad to have the choice.’’ And when asked about the poll tax case, he said, “It was just a $1.50 poll tax.”

When asked why he wanted to be on the Supreme Court, Bork responded that such service would be “an intellectual feast.” But what concerned many people watching the hearings was that Bork seemed to argue that the viewpoints and ideas he’d espoused for decades wouldn’t apply to his judgment on the Court, that what he said in 1971 about free speech didn’t apply anymore in 1987 when he just so happened to be asked about it.

By October, a majority of Americans polled by the Washington Post opposed his nomination to the Supreme Court. On October 6, Bork was rejected by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and on October 23, he was rejected by the Senate itself, by a vote of 58-42.

Bork’s backstory
But there was even more to Bork’s story, which came up during his nomination hearings and played into both how Bork was perceived by the public and the ultimate failure of his nomination: his involvement in the Watergate scandal.

From 1973 to 1977, Bork served as solicitor general of the United States, arguing cases before the Supreme Court on behalf of the federal government. (If you’ll recall, it’s during the nomination proceedings for this role that he made his comment about poll taxes.)


On October 20, 1973, President Richard Nixon ordered the firing of Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor investigating Nixon’s knowledge of the June 1972 break-in and attempted bugging of the Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate Complex in Washington. More specifically, Cox wanted 10 hours of Oval Office tapes, which included Nixon’s discussions of the break-in, and rather than give up the tapes, Nixon wanted Cox gone.

Both Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus refused to fire Cox, and both resigned from their positions in protest, leaving Bork as acting attorney general. Bork did fire Cox, and though he had planned to resign immediately after doing so, he said that Richardson and Ruckelshaus had urged him to stay for the good of the Justice Department. According to Bork, Nixon promised him the next open spot on the Supreme Court if he fired Cox. The firing of Archibald Cox became known as the “Saturday Night Massacre” and helped to seal the end of the Nixon administration.

To Bork, the decision to fire Cox was one he made as a means of protecting the Justice Department and, in effect, the country. In 1987, the day he was nominated to the Supreme Court, he told the New York Times, “I had, I thought, to contain a very dangerous situation, one that threatened the viability of the Department of Justice and of other parts of the executive branch. ... If that had happened, the Department of Justice would have lost its top leadership, all of it, and would I think have effectively been crippled.”

But Bork’s decision to follow Nixon’s orders had consequences. Althea Simmons, the chief lobbyist and director of the Washington bureau of the NAACP (which opposed Bork’s nomination), testified at the nomination hearing in 1987, and said:

Judge Bork’s writings about constitutional or judicial philosophy are not the only issues of concern to this organization. We have grave reservations about his firing of Archibald Cox. This was an illegal action according to the court and yet, during his confirmation hearings, Judge Bork contended that his actions were lawful.

And she wasn’t alone. Alan B. Morrison, co-founder of the Public Citizen Litigation Group (which had sued Bork over his decision to fire Cox), submitted testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, saying in part:

...the most disturbing thing about Judge Bork’s firing of Archibald Cox is what it shows about his views of executive power and his willingness to disregard a solemn compact made between the President of the United States and his Attorney General nominee, on one side, and the Senate of the United States on the other.

The legacy of Robert Bork
Bork would go on to become a widely admired stalwart within conservative circles. He wrote books on morality and virtue and what he viewed as declining moral standards in America. He also argued extensively for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, saying in the conservative religious journal First Things in 2004:

By equating heterosexuality and homosexuality, by removing the last vestiges of moral stigma from same-sex couplings, such marriages will lead to an increase in the number of homosexuals. Particularly vulnerable will be young men and women who, as yet uncertain of and confused by their sexuality, may more easily be led into a homosexual life.

And though Bork died in December 2012, the memory of his failed Supreme Court nomination would remain, specifically in the term “Borking.”

In 1991, a woman named Florynce Kennedy told a National Organization for Women conference that with regards to then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas, “We’re going to bork him. We’re going to kill him politically. ... This little creep, where did he come from?” And since then, “Borking” has expanded. In January 2001, the New York Times even featured a chart of “likely borkees and their probable score on the bork-o-meter,” referring to potential nominees for high-level positions within the Bush administration (John Ashcroft, for instance, received nine Borks).


“Borking” is now viewed as a widely used practice for both Republicans and Democrats, though now it generally means attempting to bring down a high-level candidate with “personal attacks” on something seemingly irrelevant to their jobs. For example, Bill Clinton’s first choice for attorney general, Zoe Baird, was “Borked” in 1993 when news that she had hired an undocumented immigrant as a nanny for her children came to light (her nomination was withdrawn).

And in August of this year, Sen. Hatch — the same senator who had so fervently defended Robert Bork’s nomination — wrote in USA Today, “In their zeal to portray Judge Kavanaugh as the embodiment of our greatest fears, Democrats have gone borking mad.”

But what happened to Robert Bork wasn’t a tragedy. Rather, it was the result of the Supreme Court’s increased importance in American life, and a wild miscalculation by Republicans and Bork himself of how his viewpoints on laws and statutes that, for instance, desegregated American schools and public institutions — and his work on behalf of the only president to resign from office — would be perceived by the American public.

William T. Coleman, a black Republican attorney and a prominent supporter of Ronald Reagan, was a longtime colleague of Bork. But in September 1987, he wrote an op-ed for the New York Times titled “Why Judge Bork Is Unacceptable.” In the piece, he detailed how he believed Bork might overrule landmark cases that hinged on the idea of personal liberty beyond simply not being physically restrained, and curtail the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. “When it has counted,” he wrote, “Robert Bork has often stood against the aspirations of blacks to achieve their constitutional rights and to remove the vestiges of racial discrimination.”

But most importantly, Coleman emphasized that the information Americans already had about Bork’s views on the law should matter more than whatever Bork said during his hearings:

In the days ahead, we may hear that Judge Bork has modified long-held positions or that he will not necessarily follow those positions once he becomes a Supreme Court Justice. Such claims will lack credibility. Judge Bork has told us again and again what he believes Justices should and should not do. With an acerbity that brought him notoriety, he has denounced as unsupportable dozens of landmark Court cases, and he has also repeatedly said that Justices should be free to overrule prior decisions they believe are unsupportable. It simply defies common sense to think that Justice Bork would not effectively do what he has built his career saying should be done.

It is possible of course that, invested with the robes, Robert Bork would move within the mainstream of constitutional law. It is against the public interest, however, to take the chance that he will not.

In short, Bork was “Borked” not by Democrats or liberals, but by Robert Bork.


ALL OF KAVANAUGH’S STATEMENTS THAT HE “WOULD NEVER” DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO A WOMAN/GIRL JUST REMIND ME OF ONE OF THE PRIMARY CHARACTERISTICS OF AN ALCOHOLIC – HAVING A PERSONALITY CHANGE WHEN THEY DRINK, AND IT IS CLEAR THAT HE AND HIS FRIEND JUDGE CERTAINLY DID DRINK. JUDGE WROTE A WELL-KNOWN BOOK ON HIS (AND VERY LIKELY KAVANAUGH’S) ADVENTURES IN THE WORLD TOGETHER AND ALL THOSE PARTIES. THAT BOOK WAS CALLED “WASTED.”

JUDGE, I SUSPECT DID GO TO SOME TREATMENT PROGRAM OR PERHAPS ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS. ONE ARTICLE I’VE SEEN IN THE LAST FEW DAYS SAID THAT HE TOLD HIS WIFE ABOUT ALL OF HIS WILD OAT SOWING. I WOULD HAVE HOPED THAT KAVANAUGH WOULD GO TO A.A. TOO.

IT TEACHES HONESTY, AND THROUGH ITS’ STEPS AND THE COMMONALITY AMONG THE MEMBERS, MANY PEOPLE DO “GET SOBER.” IT IS TRUE, THOUGH, THAT IF JUDGE DID DO THAT, HE WOULD BE HONOR BOUND NOT TO DIVULGE THE NAME OF ANOTHER MEMBER. I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT HE KNOWS PLENTY – WHERE ALL THE BODIES ARE BURIED – BUT HE WILL PROBABLY NEVER TELL ABOUT IT.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/25/politics/kavanaugh-interview-martha-mccallum/index.html
The 22 most important moments from Brett Kavanaugh's extraordinary Fox News interview
Chris Cillizza
Analysis by Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large
Updated 12:02 AM ET, Wed September 26, 2018

(CNN)Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and his wife Ashley sat down for an interview with Fox News' Martha McCallum Monday in an attempt to reclaim momentum for a bid badly hamstrung by two allegations of sexually inappropriate conduct.

The entire scene was surreal. A man days away from a hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee that will save or doom his chance at the nation's highest court, talking about his sexual past on national TV.

I went through the transcript and picked out the most important lines. They're below.
1. "I am looking for a fair process, a process where I can defend my integrity and clear my name."
"Fair" is the word of this interview. Kavanaugh says it more than a dozen times in the course of the relatively short sitdown. The unspoken point comes through loud and clear: Being forced to endure these accusations without being able to answer them has been deeply unfair in Kavanaugh's mind. And he wants a chance to level the playing field.
2. "I have never sexually assaulted anyone, not in high school, not ever."
This is a total and complete denial, with zero wiggle room. Which means that if either of Kavanaugh's accusers -- Christine Blasey Ford or Deborah Ramirez -- can make a convincing case (or a corroborated case) that Kavanaugh did in fact engage in the behavior they said he did, he's cooked.
3. "All I am asking for is a fair process where I can be heard."
Again and again (and again), Kavanaugh turns whatever question he is asked to these two basic points: a) fair process where b) his voice can be heard.
4. "I never had any sexual or physical activity with Dr. Ford."
This response from Kavanaugh effectively eliminates the theory offered in some conservative circles that Kavanaugh and Ford did have an encounter that he believed to be consensual and she did not. What Kavanaugh has said even to this point in this interview is that there was never any sort of contact between him and Ford. None. Ever.

5. "I'm not questioning and have not questioned that perhaps Dr. Ford was sexually assaulted by someone in some place."
Kavanaugh is trying to walk a very fine line here. He knows that saying that Ford made the whole thing up would not play well in our current cultural moment. So, he says he believes she may well have been assaulted -- just not by him.
6. "I never did any such thing. Never did any such thing."
This is Kavanaugh's total denial of the allegation made over the weekend by Ramirez, who said Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a party when they were both freshmen at Yale.
7. "If such a thing had happened, it would have been the talk of the campus."
It's hard to know whether -- three decades later -- what was the "talk of the campus" and what wasn't. But it is worth noting that The New Yorker, which first wrote about the Ramirez allegations, talked to several people who went to Yale with Kavanaugh and Ramirez who said they had heard about a story similar to the one Ramirez told in the days after the event allegedly occurred. The magazine, however, acknowledged that it "has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party."
8. "The women I knew in college and the men I knew in college says it is inconceivable that I could have done such a thing."
Many have. But one of Kavanaugh's roommates in the fall of 1983 -- James Roche -- released a statement in which he said he saw Kavanaugh often drinking heavily during that period of time. "Based on my time with Brett, I believe he and his social circle were capable of the actions that Debbie described," said Roche.
9. "Again, just asking for a fair process where I can be heard and I did defend my integrity."
I told you he was on message.
10. "The New York Times said they could not corroborate this story and said the person making the accusation had been calling around to other classmates indicating her uncertainty about whether I had ever done such a thing."
It is true that The New York Times had been pursuing this same story. But that doesn't tell the whole story. The New Yorker spoke to Ramirez on the record. The Times did not. As Times editor Dean Baquet told The Washington Post's Erik Wemple on Monday: "I gather some people thought we were trying to knock down (Ramirez's) account, but that's not what we were doing. I'm not questioning their story. We've been competing against Ronan Farrow for a year and he's terrific."
11. "A letter from friends I knew in high school produced overnight 65 women who knew me in high school."
This is true. But Kavanaugh's assertion that all the people who knew him in high school can attest that he was a good kid took a hit on Monday night when The New York Times reported that a woman mentioned in Kavanaugh's yearbook found the insinuation that she was part of a sexual conquest of his "hurtful" and "untrue."
12. "When I was in high school -- and I went to an all-boys Catholic high school where I was focused on academics and athletics and going to church every Sunday at Little Flower and working on my service projects and friendships."
Even if you believe that Kavanaugh never did anything like what is being alleged by Ford and Ramirez, this portrait the judge is painting of himself doesn't comport with the reality that even some of his friends portray of their high school life. The culture in which Kavanaugh operated was of drinking and carousing. Which doesn't make him guilty of sexual assault. But the idea that he was a choir boy is a bit of a reach.
13. "I did not have sexual intercourse or anything close to sexual intercourse in high school or for many years thereafter."
Whoa boy. This took a turn. And I did not see it coming.
14. "Many years after. I will leave it that. Many years after."
So, we have now learned that Brett Kavanaugh, according to Brett Kavanaugh, was a virgin through high school and college and "many years thereafter." Which is not what I expected to learn when I tuned into this interview.
15. "I would say, fair process. Let me be heard."
Fair process. Be heard. Fair process.
16. "For the last seven years I've been coaching girls basketball. Ask the moms."
This argument doesn't really check out. Kavanaugh is making the case that because he coaches his daughters' basketball teams and the moms of the girls love and trust him, he couldn't possibly have done what Ford and Ramirez have alleged. Which is simply not true. One does not follow the other. Kavanaugh very well may have done neither of the things that the two women have said he did. But the fact that the moms of the kids he coaches think he is a good dude proves nothing either way,
17. "No, that never happened."
This is Kavanaugh's response to a very good McCallum question about whether he ever drank so much that he simply didn't remember what happened the night before. Kavanaugh's rejection of that idea is in keeping with his hermetically sealed denial. There was never a moment of his life he doesn't remember and he remembers he didn't do these things.
18. "I think everyone is judged on their whole life."
Here Kavanaugh rejects one of the defenses some have offered of him -- when he was young and stupid, he was young and stupid. Kavanaugh says that idea doesn't apply, that he should be judged on his conduct during his entire life: 15, 17 or 50s.
19. "I just want a fair process where I can be heard."
20. "I just want a fair process where I can be heard and defend my integrity defend the integrity of my family."
21. "I just want an opportunity and a fair process to defend my integrity."
These are three straight Kavanaugh responses to questions about whether he wonders where all this is coming from and why these women are saying what they are saying. And yes, they are almost verbatim of one another.
22. "I am not going anywhere."
The argument being made by Kavanaugh allies before and after this interview was that he wanted to do it not out of panic but because he wanted to send a very clear signal to Senate Republicans, some of whom were getting a bit shaky on all of it, that he was in the fight to stay. That he wasn't backing down and neither should they. This line, which is the most quoted of the interview, does just that.


ONE THOUGHT OCCURS TO ME HERE ON THIS ONE – THE TERM “TRAINING,” WHICH I’VE NEVER HEARD BEFORE, DOES HAVE A VERY DESCRIPTIVE RING TO IT OF WHAT REALLY HAPPENS IN GANG RAPES. IT MAKES ME THINK THAT THIS STORY MAY BE TRUE. ON THE OTHER HAND, AS ONE REPUBLICAN TONIGHT IS QUOTED AS SAYING, "WHY WOULD SHE KEEP GOING TO THOSE PARTIES?" OF COURSE THERE IS A CERTAIN "OUR GANG" MENTALITY AMONG SO MANY YOUNG PEOPLE, THAT SOME VERY STRANGE THINGS ARE DONE IN ORDER TO BE "INCLUDED." PERSONALLY, I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT. ONE OF MY HIGH SCHOOL MALE ACQUAINTANCES DID SAY TO ME, "YOU'RE TOO INDEPENDENT!" YES, I AM INDEPENDENT, BUT I CONSIDER THAT TO BE A VIRTUE.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kavanaugh-accuser-michael-avenatti-reveals-julie-swetnick-today-2018-09-26/
CBS NEWS September 26, 2018, 11:29 AM
Avenatti client says Brett Kavanaugh was present while she was "gang raped" during high school
Last Updated Sep 26, 2018 12:46 PM EDT

VIDEO – KAVANAUGH’S DEFENSE

Attorney Michael Avenatti revealed the identity of the third woman to accuse Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, Julie Swetnick, whom he referred to as "courageous, brave and honest."

While Swetnick does not accuse Kavanaugh of assaulting her, she does allege that he and his friend Mark Judge were present at a party when she was gang raped by a series of boys after her drink was spiked.

julie-swetnick.png
Julie Swetnick is the third woman to come forward with allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. PHOTO TWEETED BY LAWYER MICHAEL AVENATTI

Swetnick also says that Judge and Kavanaugh were among the boys who, at other parties in the early 1980s, spiked drinks in order to disorient girls and take advantage of them sexually.

Swetnick, who attended high school in Gaithersburg, Md. at the same time as Kavanaugh, says in a declaration posted by Avenatti that Kavanaugh, his friend Mark Judge, and others, in 1981-1982 used 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.'"

She says she witnessed efforts by Kavanaugh and Judge to cause girls "to become inebriated and disoriented so they could then be 'gang raped' in a side room or bedroom by a 'train' of numerous boys." Swetnick says in her declaration, "I have a firm recollection of seeing boys lined up outside rooms at many of these parties waiting for their 'turn' with a girl inside the room. These boys included Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh."

Swetnick alleges that in 1982, she "became the victim" of one of these rapes "where Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh were present." She says she told at least two people what had happened -- and she says she was incapacitated and "unable to fight off the boys raping me." Swetnick believes she was drugged with Quaaludes "or something similar placed in what I was drinking."

There were at least 10 house parties in the Washington, D.C. area that Swetnick says she attended, and Kavanaugh and Judge, whom she says were very close, were both in attendance, too. She says in her statement, "I observed Brett Kavanaugh drink excessively at many of these parties and engage in abusive and physically aggressive behavior toward girls, including pressing girls against him without their consent, 'grinding' against girls and attempting to remove or shift girls' clothing to expose private body parts."

She continues, "I likewise observed him be verbally abusive towards girls by making crude secual [sic] comments to them that were designed to demean, humiliate and embarrass them. I often witnessed Brett Kavanaugh speak in a demeaning manner about girls in general as well as specific girls by name. I also witnessed Brett Kavanaugh behave as a 'mean drunk' on many occasions at these parties."

Swetnick says that Kavanaugh's statement on Fox News about his sexual abstinence during high school "is absolutely false and a lie." She claims to have seen him "consistently engage in excessive drinking and inappropriate contact of a sexual nature with women during the early 1980s."

This is a developing story and will be updated.

© 2018 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.