Since I cringe whenever I see his face or hear his voice, I did not watch Kavanaugh's interview on Fox yesterday ~ but for the purists in VoC, the live link below is to the full transcript of that interview ~

As I've posted before, I'm a believer that we've ALL done things that we likely regret ~ what I find MOST offensive about Kavanaugh is the fairy-tale perfection he is claiming now ~

Kavanaugh interview transcript

Sooz

What kind of obsessive/compulsive keeps his calendars for over 30 years? Are we supposed to believe this shyte?

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!! ~ ~ what a steamrolled sham this vote will be! ~ Sooz

More MSN "BREAKING NEWS: Senate Judiciary Committee schedules Friday vote on Kavanaugh nomination. Details to come."

What kind of obsessive/compulsive keeps his calendars for over 30 years? Are we supposed to believe this shyte?


I kept mine for 38 years. Each of them curved in the form of my butt from carrying them in my back pocket. First workday in the following year they went into a drawer in my desk than the new one started to make itself comfortable. Have no idea why I kept them but I did.

The allegations are getting worse-r and worse-r ~ ~ Julie Swetnick's sworn 3-page declaration, live-linked below, is worth the read ~ Sooz

Avenatti Client Emerges With New Allegations Against Kavanaugh
By Kate Riga / September 26, 2018 11:47 am

Another woman has come forward with new sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, detailing his alleged inappropriate behavior toward women at high school parties in a sworn declaration released by her lawyer, Michael Avenatti.

The client, Julie Swetnick, alleges in a sworn declaration that in 1981 to 1983 she attended house parties with Kavanaugh and Mark Judge, Kavanaugh’s accused accomplice in the alleged attack of Christine Blasey Ford in the early 1980s.

Swetnick paints a picture of heavy alcohol consumption and non-consensual sexual activity at the parties, alleging that Kavanaugh drank heavily and acted aggressively towards women present, both in word and action. She claimed that male party attendees participated in “gang rapes,” where they would, in turns, violate a woman who had been incapacitated with spiked drinks. Swetnick said that she herself was a victim of this specific crime, and that Judge and Kavanaugh were “present” when the alleged attack took place.

These dramatic allegations have surfaced just a day before Kavanaugh and Blasey Ford are due to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on her sexual assault allegation.

Kavanaugh responded in a statement through the White House: “This is ridiculous and from the Twilight Zone. I don’t know who this is and this never happened.”

At the parties, Swetnick claims that Kavanaugh engaged 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.”

Swetnick also claims that Kavanaugh and Judge would spike the alcoholic “punch” at parties “so as to cause girls to lose their inhibitions and their ability to say ‘No.’”

She claimed that boys at these parties used this technique to “gang rape” a drunk woman at the party with a “train” of men waiting in the hallway to have their turn. Swetnick alleged that Kavanaugh and Judge were among the boys she saw “lined up outside rooms at many of these parties waiting for their ‘turn’ with a girl inside the room,” though it does not appear that Swetnick witnessed such an attack.

Swetnick alleges that she was a victim of a gang rape, and that Kavanaugh and Judge were “present” when it happened — though she does not explicitly say that they took part in the alleged attack.

The allegations are detailed in emails to a Senate Judiciary Committee lawyer that Avenatti released on Twitter:


A spokesperson for Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley said Wednesday that lawyers for the committee “are in the process of reviewing” Swetnick’s sworn declaration.

Swetnick, whose photo above was released on Twitter by Avenatti, has so far not spoken to reporters, so her declaration is currently the only public account of this incident.

Elizabeth Rasor, an ex-girlfriend of Judge’s, has told the New Yorker that Judge had related to her an incident where he and his friends “took turns having sex” with a drunk woman at a house party.

Read Swetnick’s sworn declaration here: [Interactive declaration accessible via the end link.]

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/avenatti-client-emerges-with-new-allegations-against-kavanaugh

I rarely turn TV on during the day, but I intend to watch this ~ going into this hearing, I'm convinced Kavanaugh lies when cornered and the GOP has severely misplayed its hand ~ this is ugly "bare knuckles" politics ~ ~ Sooz

A Cramped Room And 2 Star Witnesses: A Viewers Guide To Thursday’s Hearing
By Laurie Kellman / September 27, 2018 7:03 am

WASHINGTON (AP) — It’ll be a snapshot of the state of the union.

The Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Thursday turns on the credibility of its two star witnesses, Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who says he sexually assaulted her.

But there is much more electrifying the atmosphere in the cramped hearing room and the nation beyond the cameras. Allegations by other women. Death threats against the witnesses’ families and lawmakers considering the testimony. President Donald Trump’s Twitter rants. The #MeToo movement and the looming Nov. 6 midterm elections.

And a critical question that can’t be immediately answered: Can Senate Republicans get a 51-49 majority in Kavanaugh’s favor? Even Trump, Kavanaugh’s patron, says he could be swayed by Ford’s testimony.

“We have lit a match,” said retiring Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., a frequent Trump critic. “Do we appreciate how close the powder keg is?”

A guide to viewing the spectacle:

___

WHEN TO WATCH

Gavel-to-gavel coverage can be found on many news channels, with proceedings expected to begin at 10 a.m. EDT. The hearing room seats only a few dozen people not on the committee. A small pool of journalists will be allowed in, with a limited number of cameras. That’s a change — at Ford’s request — from Kavanaugh’s first four days of hearings in the massive, lit-for-television hearing room often used for high-profile proceedings.

___

AT ISSUE

Whether Kavanaugh’s nomination to a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court is still viable.

Ford says Kavanaugh pushed her into a room, groped her and covered her mouth when she tried to scream during a high school party. Kavanaugh has denied that he ever sexually assaulted anyone.

___

WHO ELSE IS WATCHING

Trump, in an unusually qualified way.

On the eve of the hearing and for the first time, Trump acknowledged that accusations of sexual misconduct leveled against him affect his views on charges against other men.

“It’s happened to me many times,” the president said at his news conference in New York, claiming he’d been falsely accused by “four or five women.”

In fact, more than a dozen women have accused Trump of sexual misconduct.

But he also said Ford’s testimony, and the accounts of other accusers could prompt him to change course.

“It’s possible that I’ll hear that and I’ll say I’m changing my mind,” Trump said.

___

THE ORDER OF THINGS

There may not be much order, if Kavanaugh’s first round of hearings is any clue. They erupted almost instantly into shouting and general bedlam — and that was before anyone was talking about sexual assault allegations.

This time, because of more limited seating, any protesters would have limited ability to disrupt the proceedings.

But here is the plan: Ford is to testify first. Kavanaugh responds. Each can talk for as long as he or she wants, according to Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa.

At Ford’s request, Kavanaugh will not be in the room when she testifies.

Each of the 11 Republican senators and each of the 10 Democratic senators on the committee will have a chance to ask five minutes of questions, Grassley said. The questioning will alternate between Republicans and Democrats.

___

SOME REPUBLICANS MIGHT PASS

Republicans have no good choices when it comes to cross-examining Ford because every GOP member of the panel is a man.

The optics of men challenging a woman who says she’s been a victim of sexual assault are so bad that the committee has asked a female prosecutor from Arizona to help with the questioning.

But, Grassley told reporters on Wednesday, “Any Republican that wants to claim their five minutes can claim their five minutes.”

___

THE STAR QUESTIONER

Look for a new face in Washington to take a high profile at the proceedings at the behest of Senate Republicans. She is Rachel Mitchell, a Republican from Arizona with decades of experience prosecuting sex crimes.

Mitchell works in the Maricopa County attorney’s office in Phoenix as the chief of the special victims division. She supervises attorneys who handle cases involving child molestation, sexual assault and computer crimes against children in Arizona’s most populous county.

___

EVIDENCE

A green-and-white scribbled calendar, complete with doodles and capital letters marked “BEACH WEEK” is Kavanaugh’s 1982 summer calendar, when he was a senior in high school. It’s also part of his defense against Ford’s accusation that he attended the party at which she says the assault happened.

Look also for four sworn affidavits from people who say Ford told them about the alleged assault before Trump nominated Kavanaugh.

Ford also provided the committee with the results of a polygraph test on her accusation. The documents indicate Ford took the test Aug. 7 at a Hilton Hotel in Maryland and seem to support her claim that she passed it, though there’s no independent expert verification.

___

PRESSURE ON DEMOCRATS

Five minutes isn’t much for a potential presidential candidate, but they’re likely to take what they can get. Look for at least two Democratic senators on the panel, said to be considering challenging Trump in 2020, to make the most of their time: Kamala Harris of California and Cory Booker of New Jersey.

Both took turns aggressively questioning Kavanaugh during his first four days of confirmation hearings in what many saw as a prelude to presidential primary campaigns.

Trump scoffed that his would-be 2020 challengers looked “like fools.”

___

SPEAKING OF TRUMP

He’s said to be seething about the slow Republican-set pace of the Kavanaugh proceedings and suggested at the United Nations that he might have preferred to hold votes on the confirmation even without hearing from Ford. Confirming conservative justices to the Supreme Court is, in his view, central to his compact with his core supporters.

Not likely to improve Trump’s mood is another bit of potential unpleasantness on his schedule Thursday: A meeting to decide the fate of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who oversees special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian election meddling. Trump indicated Wednesday that he may delay the meeting so he can focus on the hearing instead.

___

OTHER ACCUSERS

Look for whether Democrats succeed in raising the two other women accusing Kavanaugh of misconduct.

One, Deborah Ramirez, told The New Yorker that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her while they were both students at Yale. She has acknowledged consuming alcohol at the time, which clouded some of her memories.

The other, Julie Swetnick, has accused Kavanaugh and his friend, Mark Judge, of excessive drinking and inappropriate treatment of women, among other things. The Associated Press hasn’t been able to corroborate the claims.

Kavanaugh and Judge have denied the allegations. Kavanaugh said he doesn’t know Swetnick and “this never happened.”

___

YOU AGAIN?

They won’t be in the hearing room. But it’s worth noting that Swetnick’s lawyer is Michael Avenatti, the lawyer for porn actress Stormy Daniels, who says Trump tried to hush up their 2006 sexual tryst.

Avenatti says he, too, is considering running for president in 2020.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/viewers-guide-thursday-hearing

sooz wrote:I rarely turn TV on during the day, but I intend to watch this ~ going into this hearing, I'm convinced Kavanaugh lies when cornered and the GOP has severely misplayed its hand ~ this is ugly "bare knuckles" politics ~

It may be all that, but I will not watch it. I believe she will be stream-rolled, and it will only frustrate and aggravate me. I have had a lot of tension lately, I don't need anymore. I will read about it here and in the media. I don't think it will make a bit of difference and he will be nominated despite this supposed mock hearing and all the accusations. Boy, do I wish somehow I am wrong.

I can relate to your post, KB ~ and yes, you've DEFINITELY had more than your fair share of stress in recent days ~

I don't want to sound like a psycho, but I see this nomination as a question and measure of paternalism and privilege ~ I'm beyond rabidly furious that the GOP's answer is pushing the "boys will be boys" BS ~

Sooz

Just read this article. If these men seem even the tiniest bit credible and they say it was them who did what Kavanaugh is accused of - well doesn't that just take away any doubt of what an upstanding man he really is. Wonder how much they were paid to come forward and who paid them - yes, the reps are that desperate.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 439569002/

I'm watching this hearing ~ my first reactions: Sen Grassley is a pompous doofus ~ and Dr. Ford is extremely credible ~

More to come ~

Sooz

I'm getting little flashes from Raw Story and that seems to be the general consensus - even at Fox News.

After a 45minute break, it's Kavanaugh's turn ~ his opening statement is VERY fiery, damning everyone [especially Dems] ~ back to being the life-long choir boy ~

Sooz

Still in his opening statement [20+mins later, with no end in sight], going back and forth between rage, sipping water, and tears ~

Sooz

FINALLY done with his opening statement! ~ he is so overly emotional, I'm not sure he's gonna be able to hold it together thru this questioning ~

Sooz

My original sense of Judge Kavanaugh has not changed ~ he is a clear product of white privilege, and played the "God" card several times ~ he opened fire on Dem senators questioning him, creating shouting matches ~ he danced and/or ranted around direct questions, not answering Dem questions directly ~ the Dem senators showed remarkable restraint as he was ranting at them [especially Amy Klobuchar, Kamala Harris, and Cory Booker] ~

Sooz

Surprise! Surprise! Grabem thinks Kavanaugh's evidence was riviting and truthful. I guess that means the GOP has it's marching orders. Watch them all fall into line like good little ducks.

Shift's #67 above wins the internet today for its TRUTH ~

Sooz

I'm not surprised ~ posting this without further comment until my head stops spinning around on my neck ~ ~ Sooz

GOP majority votes to approve Brett Kavanaugh despite sexual assault allegations
Travis Gettys / 28 Sep 2018 at 09:53 ET

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted along party lines to send Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination for a full vote.

The Republican majority voted 11-10 to approve Kavanaugh, in spite of sexual assault allegations.

“There’s simply no reason to deny Judge Kavanaugh a seat on the Supreme Court,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the committee chairman.

Senators heard from Kavanaugh’s accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, and Kavanaugh the day before their vote.

The GOP majority refused a motion by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) to subpoena Kavanaugh friend Mark Judge, who Ford placed in the room at the time of her assault.

Kavanaugh’s nomination will now go before the full Senate for a vote.

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/09/gop-majority-votes-approve-brett-kavanaugh-despite-sexual-assault-allegations/

Josh Marshall gets an A+ on this commentary ~ Sooz

EDBLOG Kavanaugh SCOTUS Nomination
The Most Shocking Findings in Yesterday’s Drama
By Josh Marshall / September 28, 2018 9:33 am

Yesterday was a compendium of so many things in our public life. There are too many things that could be said about it. Let me start now with one observation on the entirety of the day and what I think was the most critical development in terms of specific new evidence that really demands some investigation.

In the morning, you had what appeared to be a near universal sense that Christine Blasey Ford was credible and compelling. Republicans who are intent and fast-tracking a vote before Kavanaugh loses more support were grim and crestfallen. Kavanaugh’s performance told us little new that we didn’t know but was filled with rage, grievance and aggression. Senate Republicans were close to ecstatic in response and appear to remain so this morning. That in itself is among the most telling things. Kavanaugh decided to emulate Trump – right down to the conspiracy theories, casual lying and aggressive counter-attacks against political enemies. It all seemed to come naturally. And Senate Republicans loved it. The reaction alone – to a performance that cannot possibly ever command even the most limited respect on the Court from those Kavanaugh explicitly terms his political enemies – is the most telling political takeaway from yesterday.

But there is an entirely different aspect of what emerged yesterday, something that caught my attention immediately and which others have since found more on. Kavanaugh rested his aggressive defense on the claim that he and Blasey Ford weren’t even in the same social circles and that he didn’t even attend parties like the one she describes in the summer in question. But little discussed in the hearing was significant new evidence about what connected them and a party that seems to match it closely.

Remember that wild Ed Whelan debacle where Kavanaugh’s close friend came up with this highly speculative theory which pointed the finger of blame at a classmate named Chris Garrett, now a middle school teacher in Georgia. It turns out he wasn’t some random guy from the yearbook. He was apparently one of Kavanaugh’s group of friends, seemingly a fairly good friend. He shows up with him in the yearbook and he’s referenced repeatedly in Kavanaugh’s calendar/diary under the nickname “Squi”. Both Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh identified him as such. It turns out that around this time he was also dating Christine Blasey. This is needless to say a pretty clear way the two social worlds came together.

There is in fact a reference to a pre-party get together on July 1st, 1982 in that calendar that sounds a lot like the event Blasey Ford describes. It has Kavanaugh, Mark Judge and at least one (“PJ”) of the other boys Blasey Ford said in her initial letter were there. You can see the entry here.


Now, all we can really say based on this bit of evidence is that Kavanaugh clearly was attending parties like the one Blasey Ford described at that time, something that is not at all incriminating in itself but which is nevertheless something Kavanaugh has denied. But there is actually more suggestive evidence. And the best walk through it comes in a series of article yesterday by the Post’s Philip Bump. Here is one on information in Mark Judge’s book which appears to confirm one element of Blasey Ford’s account. Here is a second one. And here is the one specifically about this party. As Bump notes, coincidentally or not, it was after Rachel Mitchell’s questioning on this party that her participation in the hearing abruptly ended.

I don’t believe it is coincidental that the man Ed Whelan chose to publicly accuse, apparently working in concert Leonard Leo of The Federalist Society and quite possibly Kavanaugh himself, happened to be someone who was actually a good friend of Kavanaugh’s and happened to be dating Blasey Ford at around the same time. There is a connection here.

The relevant point for us is not that this is necessarily the date that the incident happened or that we could get closer to corroboration or exoneration based on these details. It is that there is an obvious place to start for the FBI to review these details as part of a reopened background check.

What seems like highly relevant information is sitting right there and they’re refusing to look at it. Senate Republicans are now rushing to a final floor vote on Monday. This needs to be examined and there is little no time to lose.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-most-shocking-findings-in-yesterdays-drama

I read earlier that Jeff Flake was being publicly humiliated bcs of his vote ~ not sure if that would be enough to get him to change it ~ I'm not even sure if changing a vote is possible ~ I also read a while ago that this morning's vote was only on ordering a new FBI investigation and the vote on Kavanaugh was scheduled for 1:30p today ~ which is why this article caught my attention ~ I'll keep watching for more info ~ Sooz

EDBLOG
Something Is Up
By Josh Marshall / September 28, 2018 1:38 pm

There’s something very odd going on in this Senate hearing room. It appears that Senator Flake, who had come out in Kavanaugh’s favor this morning, has been having “discussions” with Sen. Chris Coons and seemingly having some second thoughts about his choice. It’s really not clear what he’s doing. But they were supposed to vote at 1:30 PM. They’ve now gone past that time. There are a few possibilities. One is that he’s changed his position. That seems hard to believe. But possibly he has moved toward insisting on some kind of investigation. We don’t know. But there’s clearly some hitch.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/something-is-up

Looks like Flake says he will not commit to vote on the floor unless there is a delay and FBI investigation. He did vote in committee to send it to the floor. Murkowski also calling for investigation. Lindsay Graham gets to tell 45 about the situation.

WOOO HOOO!!! ~ Flake forced this delay! ~ I also heard that at least 2 [and maybe 3] Dem senators from "red states" that the GOP were counting on being "swing voters" have stated they would NOT vote for Kavanaugh without further investigation ~ Kavanaugh et al must be even more frantic now ~

Sooz

From FB


https://www.facebook.com/Vox/photos/a.2 ... =3&theater

Quoting one of the comments re that pic

WOW! ~ Kavanaugh used each of the points in shift's above post ~ I also note most, if not each, of those points describe "white privilege" as well ~

Sooz