The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
09-23-2018, 06:04 PM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
meanwhile:
THE REAL REASON WHY KAVANAUGH ACCUSER FORD DOESN’T WANT TO TESTIFY UNTIL THURSDAY
By Kevin Ryan
Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford have tentatively agreed to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday. The committee’s Republican leadership had been pushing for Monday or Wednesday, but Ford had rejected those dates from the start. Her insistence on waiting until Thursday is very revealing for one major reason.
That’s the day the committee had been scheduled to vote on Kavanaugh.
By choosing Thursday, Ford and her team of advisors will force yet another postponement of the Kavanaugh vote. And committee rules stipulate that a vote must be announced one week in advance. So it will now be all but impossible for Judge Kavanaugh to be confirmed in time for the October 1st opening day of the Supreme Court’s 2018-2019 term.
But a slight delay is not the real goal of Democrats. There is now a scenario emerging in which Democrats could not only stop Kavanaugh from being confirmed, but even stop President Trump from getting anyone confirmed.
A look at a few key upcoming dates reveals a path to blocking any Trump nominee:
• Sept. 27: The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on whether to recommend Kavanaugh to the Senate this upcoming Thursday. The vote had been scheduled for a week earlier, but was postponed by a week. Now that the Ford hearing will take place that day, it’s all but certain that the vote will be postponed by another week.
• Oct. 1: The Supreme Court’s 2018 session begins. Postponing the vote means Kavanaugh will not be confirmed in time to be on the court during its opening days. The court will have just 8 justices, with a 4 to 4 ideological tie.
• Nov. 6: Midterm congressional elections. Democrats just have to convince 2 Republicans to vote against Kavanaugh to defeat his confirmation. In that event, a new nominee will have to be announced, and the long confirmation process will start over. You can be absolutely certain that Democrats will campaign on stopping whoever Trump names.
• Jan. 3, 2019: The new Senate is sworn in. If Democrats manage to take control of the Senate, this is the date when the new Senate is sworn in, and Democrats would take over. If they’d managed to defeat Kavanaugh and delay or defeat the nominee to replace him by the time January 3rd comes around, it would be game over for Republicans. President Trump would now be forced to nominate someone that Democrats approved of. And they may actually demand he nominate a liberal, or else not vote on any nominee at all. It would be considered payback for the Republican refusal to vote on Merrick Garland in 2016, a vacancy eventually filled by Trump’s pick Neil Gorsuch. And there’s even talk that a Democratic Senate would hold out more than 2 years without voting on a Trump nominee in the hopes that a Democrat would win the White House in 2020.
But such a scenario all starts with another delay in the Senate Judiciary Committee’s upcoming Thursday vote on Brett Kavanaugh. A delay made possible by Christine Blasey Ford’s refusal to testify until Thursday.
By Kevin Ryan
Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford have tentatively agreed to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday. The committee’s Republican leadership had been pushing for Monday or Wednesday, but Ford had rejected those dates from the start. Her insistence on waiting until Thursday is very revealing for one major reason.
That’s the day the committee had been scheduled to vote on Kavanaugh.
By choosing Thursday, Ford and her team of advisors will force yet another postponement of the Kavanaugh vote. And committee rules stipulate that a vote must be announced one week in advance. So it will now be all but impossible for Judge Kavanaugh to be confirmed in time for the October 1st opening day of the Supreme Court’s 2018-2019 term.
But a slight delay is not the real goal of Democrats. There is now a scenario emerging in which Democrats could not only stop Kavanaugh from being confirmed, but even stop President Trump from getting anyone confirmed.
A look at a few key upcoming dates reveals a path to blocking any Trump nominee:
• Sept. 27: The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on whether to recommend Kavanaugh to the Senate this upcoming Thursday. The vote had been scheduled for a week earlier, but was postponed by a week. Now that the Ford hearing will take place that day, it’s all but certain that the vote will be postponed by another week.
• Oct. 1: The Supreme Court’s 2018 session begins. Postponing the vote means Kavanaugh will not be confirmed in time to be on the court during its opening days. The court will have just 8 justices, with a 4 to 4 ideological tie.
• Nov. 6: Midterm congressional elections. Democrats just have to convince 2 Republicans to vote against Kavanaugh to defeat his confirmation. In that event, a new nominee will have to be announced, and the long confirmation process will start over. You can be absolutely certain that Democrats will campaign on stopping whoever Trump names.
• Jan. 3, 2019: The new Senate is sworn in. If Democrats manage to take control of the Senate, this is the date when the new Senate is sworn in, and Democrats would take over. If they’d managed to defeat Kavanaugh and delay or defeat the nominee to replace him by the time January 3rd comes around, it would be game over for Republicans. President Trump would now be forced to nominate someone that Democrats approved of. And they may actually demand he nominate a liberal, or else not vote on any nominee at all. It would be considered payback for the Republican refusal to vote on Merrick Garland in 2016, a vacancy eventually filled by Trump’s pick Neil Gorsuch. And there’s even talk that a Democratic Senate would hold out more than 2 years without voting on a Trump nominee in the hopes that a Democrat would win the White House in 2020.
But such a scenario all starts with another delay in the Senate Judiciary Committee’s upcoming Thursday vote on Brett Kavanaugh. A delay made possible by Christine Blasey Ford’s refusal to testify until Thursday.
Reply
0
0
09-23-2018, 06:30 PM
^^ Was that second part supposed to be any kind of a surprise?
It was so blatantly obvious from the inception what was being attempted. Difi deliberately sat on it to use as her "trump" card (pun intended) at precisely the right time. You couldn't have scripted this **** any better than this.
It was so blatantly obvious from the inception what was being attempted. Difi deliberately sat on it to use as her "trump" card (pun intended) at precisely the right time. You couldn't have scripted this **** any better than this.
Last edited by good2go; 09-23-2018 at 11:20 PM. Reason: sp
Reply
0
0
09-23-2018, 07:04 PM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,026
Total Cats: 6,592
Do you seriously think that little of my writing skills?
I'm honestly a tad offended by that.
Not a huge amount, mind you, but I really thought I'd gotten to a point in my career at which members of the flock had a bit more respect for my literary prowess.
This forces me to take a moment of pause and reflection.
I'm honestly a tad offended by that.
Not a huge amount, mind you, but I really thought I'd gotten to a point in my career at which members of the flock had a bit more respect for my literary prowess.
This forces me to take a moment of pause and reflection.
Reply
0
0
09-23-2018, 11:17 PM
Do you seriously think that little of my writing skills?
I'm honestly a tad offended by that.
Not a huge amount, mind you, but I really thought I'd gotten to a point in my career at which members of the flock had a bit more respect for my literary prowess.
This forces me to take a moment of pause and reflection.
I'm honestly a tad offended by that.
Not a huge amount, mind you, but I really thought I'd gotten to a point in my career at which members of the flock had a bit more respect for my literary prowess.
This forces me to take a moment of pause and reflection.
... meanwhile:
THE REAL REASON WHY KAVANAUGH ACCUSER FORD DOESN’T WANT TO TESTIFY UNTIL THURSDAY
By Kevin Ryan
Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford have tentatively agreed to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday. The committee’s Republican leadership had been pushing for Monday or Wednesday, but Ford had rejected those dates from the start. Her insistence on waiting until Thursday is very revealing for one major reason.
That’s the day the committee had been scheduled to vote on Kavanaugh.
By choosing Thursday, Ford and her team of advisors will force yet another postponement of the Kavanaugh vote. And committee rules stipulate that a vote must be announced one week in advance. So it will now be all but impossible for Judge Kavanaugh to be confirmed in time for the October 1st opening day of the Supreme Court’s 2018-2019 term.
But a slight delay is not the real goal of Democrats. There is now a scenario emerging in which Democrats could not only stop Kavanaugh from being confirmed, but even stop President Trump from getting anyone confirmed.
A look at a few key upcoming dates reveals a path to blocking any Trump nominee:
• Sept. 27: The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on whether to recommend Kavanaugh to the Senate this upcoming Thursday. The vote had been scheduled for a week earlier, but was postponed by a week. Now that the Ford hearing will take place that day, it’s all but certain that the vote will be postponed by another week.
• Oct. 1: The Supreme Court’s 2018 session begins. Postponing the vote means Kavanaugh will not be confirmed in time to be on the court during its opening days. The court will have just 8 justices, with a 4 to 4 ideological tie.
• Nov. 6: Midterm congressional elections. Democrats just have to convince 2 Republicans to vote against Kavanaugh to defeat his confirmation. In that event, a new nominee will have to be announced, and the long confirmation process will start over. You can be absolutely certain that Democrats will campaign on stopping whoever Trump names.
• Jan. 3, 2019: The new Senate is sworn in. If Democrats manage to take control of the Senate, this is the date when the new Senate is sworn in, and Democrats would take over. If they’d managed to defeat Kavanaugh and delay or defeat the nominee to replace him by the time January 3rd comes around, it would be game over for Republicans. President Trump would now be forced to nominate someone that Democrats approved of. And they may actually demand he nominate a liberal, or else not vote on any nominee at all. It would be considered payback for the Republican refusal to vote on Merrick Garland in 2016, a vacancy eventually filled by Trump’s pick Neil Gorsuch. And there’s even talk that a Democratic Senate would hold out more than 2 years without voting on a Trump nominee in the hopes that a Democrat would win the White House in 2020.
But such a scenario all starts with another delay in the Senate Judiciary Committee’s upcoming Thursday vote on Brett Kavanaugh. A delay made possible by Christine Blasey Ford’s refusal to testify until Thursday.
Reply
0
0
09-24-2018, 09:09 AM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
STEPHANOPOLOS: “This jumped out at me. You said at first she wasn’t sure if this was Kavanaugh last week, and you write after six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorneys she did become confident that it was him.”
FARROW: “And I would say that’s extremely typical with these stories when you are dealing with drama and alcohol. The more caution that I have dealt with in cases like this frequently say, I want to take time and search myself and make sure that I can affirmatively stand by these claims in the face of what she knew would be a crucible of partisan pushback which is what she is receiving now.”
STEPHANOPOLOS: “Why did she come forward?”
FARROW: “She came forward because Senate Democrats came looking for this claim. She did not flag this. This came to the attention of people on the hill independently, and it has co cornered her into an awkward position. She said, point-blank, I don’t want to ruin anyone’s life, but she feels this is a serious claim. She considers her own memories credible and she felt it was important to tell her own story before others did for her.”
FARROW: “And I would say that’s extremely typical with these stories when you are dealing with drama and alcohol. The more caution that I have dealt with in cases like this frequently say, I want to take time and search myself and make sure that I can affirmatively stand by these claims in the face of what she knew would be a crucible of partisan pushback which is what she is receiving now.”
STEPHANOPOLOS: “Why did she come forward?”
FARROW: “She came forward because Senate Democrats came looking for this claim. She did not flag this. This came to the attention of people on the hill independently, and it has co cornered her into an awkward position. She said, point-blank, I don’t want to ruin anyone’s life, but she feels this is a serious claim. She considers her own memories credible and she felt it was important to tell her own story before others did for her.”
when you're so fake, other fake outlets calling you out:
The New Yorker hit piece on Brett Kavanaugh published Sunday night accusing Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, without corroboration, of exposing himself to a female Yale classmate at a drunken dorm party in the 1980s was met with skepticism by the New York Times and ABC News. (UPDATE: CBS News, also. At end.)
Reply
0
0
09-24-2018, 12:21 PM
Meanwhile, Twitter's anti-election tampering algorithms are apparently working as designed:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0181540de5b6e
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0181540de5b6e
Reply
0
0
09-24-2018, 01:25 PM
Elite Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: OKC, OK
Posts: 3,693
Total Cats: 222
I'd hate to think of the number of accusations that could be made toward my friends and I from college. Like a running joke at parties was to get other people to "look at the cat brain."
Which if you don't know, is where you slyly pull your ***** out and squeeze them together so the vaguely resemble a small, veiny brain. Then ask someone not paying attention, "Hey, have you ever seen a cat brain?" To which, they immediately turn around and see your junk.
Even my girlfriend just said when she was in college, same ****, people get drunk and pull their dicks or **** out...........because you're drunk, goofing around, and definitely not an adult while still in college.
Which if you don't know, is where you slyly pull your ***** out and squeeze them together so the vaguely resemble a small, veiny brain. Then ask someone not paying attention, "Hey, have you ever seen a cat brain?" To which, they immediately turn around and see your junk.
Even my girlfriend just said when she was in college, same ****, people get drunk and pull their dicks or **** out...........because you're drunk, goofing around, and definitely not an adult while still in college.
Reply
0
0
09-25-2018, 09:55 AM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
She doesn’t know when or where it happened
she went to a politician and not the police
she’s an anti-Trumper and "hired" a socialist anti-Trumper lawyer
not a single witness has backed up her claims
not a single Democrat on the committee could be bothered to attend the hearings cross examine the witnesses
she refuses to give testimony on any day other than the day Kavanaugh is supposed to be confirmed
Pelosi had this letter since around July/August and only now presented it
she will only give Republicans a redacted copy
Dr. Ford will only testify AFTER the accused gives his defense.
"I am a victim of a crime that happened 36 or maybe 37 years ago. I don't recall any details, but recently remembered that Kavanaugh did it. I want to tell my story. I want to testify before Congress to stop his nomination!"
Congress: "Okay, we will set it up for Monday at 10am."
Ford: "Whoa, wait a minute. I have conditions. I want him to tell his side of the story first."
Kavanaugh: "I have no idea what she's talking about."
Ford: "And I just remembered the names of other people who took part."
Other people: "We have no idea what she's talking about."
Ford: "And my best friend was there, too. She'll back me up."
Friend: "I have no idea what she's talking about."
Ford: "And I want a full investigation by the FBI first."
FBI: "That's actually not what we do."
Ford: "I might not be available Monday at 10am. It depends."
Media: "Kavanaugh is a monster! See how the white male patriarchy is conspiring to destroy her credibility and cover up for his crimes!"
this is gold:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...rs/1416699002/
1. I guess the others weren't quite 100%?
2. you dont hold multiple clearance.
3. risk her life? does she have dirt of Hilary or something?
creepy **** lawyer wants more tv time apparently.
she went to a politician and not the police
she’s an anti-Trumper and "hired" a socialist anti-Trumper lawyer
not a single witness has backed up her claims
not a single Democrat on the committee could be bothered to attend the hearings cross examine the witnesses
she refuses to give testimony on any day other than the day Kavanaugh is supposed to be confirmed
Pelosi had this letter since around July/August and only now presented it
she will only give Republicans a redacted copy
Dr. Ford will only testify AFTER the accused gives his defense.
"I am a victim of a crime that happened 36 or maybe 37 years ago. I don't recall any details, but recently remembered that Kavanaugh did it. I want to tell my story. I want to testify before Congress to stop his nomination!"
Congress: "Okay, we will set it up for Monday at 10am."
Ford: "Whoa, wait a minute. I have conditions. I want him to tell his side of the story first."
Kavanaugh: "I have no idea what she's talking about."
Ford: "And I just remembered the names of other people who took part."
Other people: "We have no idea what she's talking about."
Ford: "And my best friend was there, too. She'll back me up."
Friend: "I have no idea what she's talking about."
Ford: "And I want a full investigation by the FBI first."
FBI: "That's actually not what we do."
Ford: "I might not be available Monday at 10am. It depends."
Media: "Kavanaugh is a monster! See how the white male patriarchy is conspiring to destroy her credibility and cover up for his crimes!"
this is gold:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...rs/1416699002/
Avenatti also told reporters the woman, whom he did not name, has multiple security clearances and will “literally risk her life’’ by coming forward. He called her “100 percent credible,’’ saying she has multiple witnesses to corroborate her story and would be willing to take a polygraph if Kavanaugh does as well.
2. you dont hold multiple clearance.
3. risk her life? does she have dirt of Hilary or something?
creepy **** lawyer wants more tv time apparently.
Last edited by Braineack; 09-25-2018 at 10:43 AM.
Reply
0
0
09-25-2018, 11:11 AM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,026
Total Cats: 6,592
She doesn’t know when or where it happened
she went to a politician and not the police
she’s an anti-Trumper and "hired" a socialist anti-Trumper lawyer
not a single witness has backed up her claims
not a single Democrat on the committee could be bothered to attend the hearings cross examine the witnesses
she refuses to give testimony on any day other than the day Kavanaugh is supposed to be confirmed
Pelosi had this letter since around July/August and only now presented it
she will only give Republicans a redacted copy
Dr. Ford will only testify AFTER the accused gives his defense.
she went to a politician and not the police
she’s an anti-Trumper and "hired" a socialist anti-Trumper lawyer
not a single witness has backed up her claims
not a single Democrat on the committee could be bothered to attend the hearings cross examine the witnesses
she refuses to give testimony on any day other than the day Kavanaugh is supposed to be confirmed
Pelosi had this letter since around July/August and only now presented it
she will only give Republicans a redacted copy
Dr. Ford will only testify AFTER the accused gives his defense.
Reply
0
0
09-25-2018, 02:25 PM
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma
Posts: 196
Total Cats: 24
Depends on who you are calling the "victim" in this instance.
Actually, who would be considered to be the victim in this instance?
Your reply sounds like an instance of punishing the messenger for delivering the message.
Based on the CBS news story yesterday evening at 6pm all nine of the messages are being widely reported as accurate and we all know that NBC is totally accurate and unbiased.
Actually, who would be considered to be the victim in this instance?
Your reply sounds like an instance of punishing the messenger for delivering the message.
Based on the CBS news story yesterday evening at 6pm all nine of the messages are being widely reported as accurate and we all know that NBC is totally accurate and unbiased.
Last edited by BGordon; 09-25-2018 at 02:36 PM.
Reply
0
0
09-25-2018, 05:45 PM
The process of nomination was rushed. I dont even know how you could defend that. This is the fallout.
Kind of like voting for healthcare overhaul at 3am, based on 4,000 pages of who knows what, side noted with scribbles and illegible handwriting. this is all batshitcraycray.
Kind of like voting for healthcare overhaul at 3am, based on 4,000 pages of who knows what, side noted with scribbles and illegible handwriting. this is all batshitcraycray.
Reply
0
0
09-25-2018, 07:32 PM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,026
Total Cats: 6,592
For instance, in the following story, Deborah Ramirez is a victim of the President's slander campaign, and also a victim of the fact that everyone didn't immediately believe her accusations completely and without question.
(Also, I chuckle every time the President is quoted in print saying "totally," because I read it in a Valley-Girl accent.)
Trump attacks second Kavanaugh accuser, saying she ‘has nothing’ and was ‘totally inebriated’
By John Wagner and Sean Sullivan, September 25 at 3:34 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video...f-a1b7af255aa5
President Trump on Tuesday attacked the second woman who has accused Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, dismissing her account because she was “totally inebriated and all messed up,” and accused Democrats of playing a “con game” in an attempt to derail his Supreme Court nominee.
In comments to reporters after a speech at the United Nations, Trump took aim at Deborah Ramirez, a classmate of Kavanaugh’s at Yale University, who told the New Yorker magazine that he exposed himself to her at a party when they were both first-year students.
“The second accuser has nothing,” Trump told reporters. “The second accuser thinks maybe it could have been him, maybe not. She admits she was drunk. She admits time lapses.”
The president dismissed the notion that the allegation could be disqualifying, saying sarcastically: “Oh, gee, let’s not make him a Supreme Court judge because of that.”
Kavanaugh has denied the allegation as well as Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation that he sexually assaulted her when they were high school students in Maryland.
Trump’s latest comments came amid growing acrimony among Democratic and Republican senators as they prepare for a high-stakes Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Thursday featuring testimony from Ford, a professor in California, and Kavanaugh.
Pressing ahead, the Republican-led committee scheduled a vote on the Kavanaugh nomination for Friday at 9:30 a.m.
Republicans are aware of Thursday’s hearing’s optics six weeks before midterm elections, in which energized female voters will have a major say in deciding which party controls the House and Senate.
Given that all 11 GOP members of the committee are men, Republicans have picked a female outside counsel to question Ford. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) told reporters Tuesday that a lawyer had been hired, but that her name was not being announced because of concerns about her safety.
In 1991, the all-male committee’s questioning of Anita Hill about her allegations of sexual impropriety against Clarence Thomas angered female voters, who elected dozens of women in November 1992.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video...3-f3ae9c99658a
“We’ve done it because we want to depoliticize the whole process, like the Democrats politicized the Anita Hill thing,” said Grassley, who was on the Judiciary Committee in 1991. “The whole point is to create an environment where it’s what Dr. Ford has asked for, to be professional and to not be a circus.”
Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), a member of the committee, said he expected that the lawyer would conduct all questioning of Ford, “although I’m very capable of doing it.” Sen. John Neely Kennedy (R-La.) said he would “reserve the right” to question Ford.
In a speech on the Senate floor Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) promised a vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination shortly after the hearing, and cast the judge as a victim of “the weaponization of unsubstantiated smears.” He argued that Democrats have scuttled any presumption of innocence for a distinguished jurist.
Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) responded in unusually personal terms, criticizing McConnell for a promise last week to “plow through” the proceedings despite the drama over Kavanaugh’s accusers.
“Does that sound like someone who’s treating these allegations with respect and fairness and evenhandedness?” Schumer asked. “Does that sound like someone who wants to get the real facts no matter where they fall? Certainly not to me. Not to the American people.”
Schumer also said McConnell had brought the process to “a new low” with a floor speech Monday in which he called the allegations against Kavanaugh a Democratic smear job.
“They were not,” Schumer said, demanding that McConnell apologize to Ford.
The New Yorker reported Sunday that in Ramirez’s initial conversations with the publication, she was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty.
After six days of assessing her memories and consulting with a lawyer, Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections to say that she remembers Kavanaugh had exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his ***** in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away, the magazine said.
Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee huddled Tuesday to talk about where things stand, said Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), who was frustrated by the lack of specifics he has heard from his Republican colleagues.
“There are still many unresolved issues,” Durbin said. “We don’t know who this prosecutor is, if that’s what she is. And we don’t know the procedure in the committee, what the sequence will be. We don’t know how long our questioning period is. It’s all a mystery.”
Asked what Republicans had told him about Thursday’s hearing, Durbin replied dryly: “The table and chairs situation has been resolved.”
Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), another member of the Judiciary Committee, said he was not planning to ask questions in the hearing.
“I’m going to let the professional person do it,” he said, declining to say who that person will be. Graham voiced skepticism about the accusations Kavanaugh faces and said he worried about the precedent the allegations would set.
“Let’s put it this way: If this is enough — 35 years in the past, no specifics about location and time, no corroboration — God help the next batch of nominees that come through,” Graham said.
He added: “If you’re serial rapist, if you’re an abuser of women, it doesn’t stop. It’s a lifelong enterprise. Harvey Weinstein. When you’re in charge of women is when you’re the most abusive.”
Graham said his impression was that Kavanaugh has been a respectful to women who have worked for him.
Earlier Tuesday, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders indicated that the White House is open to the idea of hearing testimony from Ramirez at that hearing.
“Certainly we would be open to that, and that process could take place on Thursday,” Sanders said during an appearance on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” She also reiterated Trump’s view that the confirmation process should wrap up soon.
In a Fox News interview Monday night, Kavanaugh vigorously denied Ramirez’s and Ford’s allegations and said he would not “let false accusations drive us out of this process.”
It remains unclear whether Ramirez will testify and how quickly that could occur, given her more recent accusations. Several Republicans on the committee have said they want to vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination shortly after the Thursday hearing.
Though Sanders said the White House is open to testimony from Ramirez, she also stressed Tuesday that the confirmation process needs to come to a close.
“I do think it’s unfair to continue to drag the process out and continue to put good people through the wringer for the sake of political games the Democrats want to play,” Sanders said in a separate interview on Fox News.
During his remarks on the Senate floor on Tuesday, McConnell did not mention Ramirez.
“I look forward to hearing from both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh under oath this Thursday morning,” he said. “I’m glad we’ll be able to hear testimony from both. And then I look forward to and up-or-down vote on this nomination right here on the Senate floor.”
Grassley has reached out to Ramirez through her lawyer, but there has been no indication that he is preparing to invite her to testify publicly at this point.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), considered a key vote on the Kavanaugh nomination, has said she would like to see Ramirez speak under oath to the committee but has not specified when she would like to see that happen.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), another potential swing vote, said that it was hard to assess Ramirez’s credibility at this point.
“If the are allegations out there, then Ms. Ramirez needs to be willing to come forward with them, just as Dr. Ford has been willing to come forward, albeit reluctantly and understandably so,” Murkowski said. “And so in order for us to take them under consideration, she needs to take the next steps.”
Earlier in the day, Murkowski told reporters that an FBI investigation could help clear up the facts in the case. Republicans have resisted calls by Democrats for the FBI to investigate the claims of Kavanaugh’s accusers. She later said the Judiciary Committee could handle the investigation for now.
Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said Ramirez’s accusations seem “pretty thinly sourced” to him. As to whether it should be explored, he said he will leave that to the Judiciary Committee. “Whatever they decide is fine with me,” Corker said.
Some senators on the Judiciary Committee have already cast doubt on Ramirez’s claims.
Hatch, who is among those pressing for a quick vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination, referred to Ramirez’s allegation Monday as “phony.” When pressed on why he characterized it that way, Hatch responded: “Because I know it is. That’s why.”
Ford has alleged that Kavanaugh drunkenly pinned her to a bed, groped her and put his hand over her mouth to stifle her screams as he tried to take off her clothes at a house party in the early 1980s. Kavanaugh has denied being at the party.
By the time the Judiciary Committee holds its hearing Thursday, there could be a third Kavanaugh accuser.
Lawyer Michael Avenatti has said he is representing a woman who has accusations about Kavanaugh’s behavior in high school. In a Tuesday morning tweet, Avenatti said the woman would come forward only when she is ready but said he expects that to be within 36 hours.
Avenatti also represents Stormy Daniels, the adult film actress who was paid money by a personal lawyer for Trump to remain silent about an alleged decade-old affair.
Asked Tuesday whether he can envision any scenario where the White House withdraws Kavanaugh’s nomination, deputy press secretary Raj Shah said: “Absolutely not.”
“We firmly believe in Judge Kavanaugh,” Shah said during an appearance on MSNBC. “We believe in his nomination. We think that he’s going to make a fantastic Supreme Court justice . . . We’re moving forward.”
In a Tuesday afternoon tweet, Trump sought to underscore the high stakes for the GOP in getting Kavanaugh confirmed before the November elections. Republicans are eager to tout a successful second appointment to the Supreme Court.
In his tweet, Trump quoted conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh, writing: “You can kiss the MIDTERMS goodbye if you don’t get highly qualified Kavanaugh approved.”
Seung Min Kim and Gabriel Pogrund contributed to this report.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-open-to-public-testimony-from-second-kavanaugh-accuser-sanders-says/2018/09/25/5169442e-c0aa-11e8-9005-5104e9616c21_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c0 bbf81ced22
Reply
0
0
