Cal Thomas: Democrats’ Kavanaugh smears yet another effort to reverse 2016 election results

In statement released by the White House, Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh says he is 'willing to talk to the Senate Judiciary Committee in any way the Committee deems appropriate to refute this false allegation, from 36 years ago, and defend my integrity.'
The woman who alleged in a confidential letter that as a high school student in Maryland in the ’80s Brett Kavanaugh “pinned her to a bed on her back and groped her over her clothes, grinding his body against hers and clumsily attempting to pull off her one-piece bathing suit and the clothing she wore over it” has now revealed her identity to (surprise!) the Washington Post.
Christine Blasey Ford, who the Post says is now a 51-year-old research psychologist in northern California, originally said she did not want to tell her story or reveal her identity. Then the story went public without her consent. The letter eventually found its way to the office of Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, and Feinstein, citing Ford’s wish to remain anonymous, refused to share it with her Democratic colleagues. “I have, however,” Feinstein wrote in a statement, “referred the matter to federal investigative authorities.”
“An FBI spokesperson confirmed that the bureau had received the referral … and included it as part of Kavanaugh’s background file,” writes the Los Angeles Times, “as per the standard process.”
Ford claims she didn’t tell anyone about the alleged assault until 2012 when she was in couples therapy with her husband, but even then she didn’t mention Kavanaugh’s name. If this sounds like a replay of Anita Hill’s last-minute allegations against Clarence Thomas during his confirmation hearings, it should. In football a late hit can bring a penalty. In politics it’s all part of the game.

In football a late hit can bring a penalty. In politics it’s all part of the game.

Kavanaugh denies any inappropriate behavior took place, and as of this writing, both he and Ford have agreed to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee, a la Anita Hill. Already two Republicans, Jeff Flake of Arizona and Bob Corker of Tennessee, both of whom are leaving at the end of their terms, have called for a delay in Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote, which plays into the hands of Democrats trying to block him from the court.
Some Democrats and liberal activists apparently determined to preserve the Supreme Court’s leftward shift have chosen to get down in the mud, throwing it at a highly qualified nominee for the Supreme Court. Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg bemoaned how these confirmation hearings have become “a highly partisan show.”
The smear is nothing new in politics, but while it once might come back to stain the one throwing the mud, it is now regarded as a legitimate tool for achieving one’s political goals. The end not only justifies the means, but to the left, it mandates the means.
Republicans should fight back, labeling the smear tactics and those who employ them as demeaning and sullying their office. If one can’t win a civil debate over issues and law, then an elected official should not receive the public’s trust.

Is it any wonder why good people don’t want to serve in government? Who wants to face an avalanche of mud?

“Have you no shame?” was a line made famous during the Army-McCarthy hearings in the 1950s when Sen. Joseph McCarthy, R-Wis., claimed to have a list of communists who had infiltrated the federal government. The left rode the “McCarthyism” horse for decades, accusing any Republican or conservative of emulating McCarthy when they opposed the liberal agenda or criticized producers of movies and TV programs they believed contributed to the moral decline of the nation.
This letter should be seen for what it is — a last-minute, desperate attempt to prevent Kavanaugh’s confirmation and part of a broader plan to reverse the results of the 2016 election. This smear campaign includes not only Ford’s perfectly timed letter, but also the New York Times op-ed from an unnamed “official” in the Trump administration and many of Bob Woodward’s “sources” in his new book “Fear.”
These tactics should be denounced immediately, or they will be repeated. Is it any wonder why good people don’t want to serve in government? Who wants to face an avalanche of mud?

Keith Ellison domestic violence accuser says Democratic party doesn't believe her story

The woman who accused Minnesota Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison of domestic abuse said on Monday that Democrats don’t believe her story and threatened to isolate her over the allegations.
Karen Monahan, a former girlfriend, came forward last month alleging that Ellison sent her threatening text messages and once screamed obscenities at her as he dragged her off a bed by her feet.
Ellison has denied the accusations, saying he “never behaved this way.” He did acknowledge he was in a relationship with the woman.
The allegations didn’t lead to any immediate action against the congressman, except for the announcement that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) would review the accusations. He went on to win the Democratic primary election for Minnesota attorney general.
DNC CO-CHAIR, MINNESOTA REP. KEITH ELLISON DENIES ABUSE ALLEGATIONS FROM EX-GIRLFRIEND
Monahan slammed the Democratic Party for its response to her allegations when compared to its treatment of Christine Blasey Ford. Ford has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of attempting to force himself onto her during at a high school party nearly four decades ago, prompting prominent Democrats to get behind Ford’s allegations.
“No, they don't,” Monahan tweeted in response to a question whether the party believes women’s stories. “I've been smeared, threatened, isolated from my own party. I provided medical records from 2017, stating on two different Dr. Visits, I told them about the abuse and who did it. My therapist released records stating I have been dealing and healing from the abuse.”
She added: “Four people, including my supervisor at the time, stated that I came to them after and shared the exact story I shared publicly, I shared multiple text between me and Keith, where I discuss the abuse with him and much more. As I said before, I knew I wouldn't be believed.”
Her comment came after another user pointed to comments made by Peter Daou, a Democratic strategist and former advisor to Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, who wrote in a tweet that the Kavanaugh accuser will be “attacked, smeared, and demonized” and that people must “believe women.”
Many other Democrats and progressives – who stayed silent when the accusations against Ellison emerged – came out in support of Ford, including Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Tom Perez, chairman of the DNC, who urged to investigate the claims and Kavanaugh.
Monahan went to reiterate that her story has nothing to do with politics. “I have nothing to prove to anyone, I simply shared my story. People can believe it or not. I don’t need anyone to affirm my humanity, I affirmed it,” she wrote in another tweet.
“The fact that both parties only care if it scores political points is hypocritical,” she added. “Do you think a person who has dealt with any form of abuse by politicians is thinking about politics? No, we & are families are trying to heal.”

Trump to declassify the 'insurance policy' in the Strzok-Page text, Nunes says

Rep. Devin Nunes, the House Intelligence Committee chairman, told Fox News exclusively on Monday that he believes President Trump’s order to declassify several documents related to the FBI Russia investigation will expose the “insurance policy” that was referred to in text messages between FBI figures Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.
In a text from Strzok to Page dated Aug. 15, 2016, the pair discussed “an insurance policy” in the event that Donald Trump went on to win the presidential election.
“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office – that there’s no way he gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take the risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40,” the text read.
The text messages between Strzok and Page have been used by Trump to bolster his claim that the Russia collusion investigation is a “rigged witch hunt.” Democrats, by and large, don’t look at these texts as helpful in their case, but claim that the agents were never influenced by their comments.
Nunes said he believes the declassification will provide exculpatory evidence for the president. He said the new information will shed new light on the dozen or so 302s from Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, which could show the interactions between ex-British spy Christopher Steele, Fusion GPS and “many other rotten apples” within the FBI.
“A lot of people think that the insurance policy was getting the FISA warrant on [former Trump campaign aide] Carter Page,” he told Laura Ingraham, host of “The Ingraham Angle.” “We actually believe it was more explicit than that.”
White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said Trump had ordered the documents released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the Justice Department "[a]t the request of a number of committees of Congress, and for reasons of transparency."
House Intelligence Committee ranking member Adam Schiff, D-Calif., called Trump's decision "a clear abuse of power."
"[Trump] has decided to intervene in a pending law enforcement investigation by ordering the selective release of materials he believes are helpful to his defense team and thinks will advance a false narrative," Schiff said. "With respect to some of these materials, I have been previously informed by the FBI and Justice Department that they would consider their release a red line that must not be crossed as they may compromise sources and methods.
"This is evidently of no consequence to a President who cares about nothing about the country and everything about his narrow self-interest," Schiff added.
Trump also ordered the Justice Department to release text messages from a number of the key players in the Russia investigation "without redaction" -- including Ohr, Strzok, Lisa Page, former FBI Director James Comey and former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.
A Justice Department spokesperson told Fox News that the DOJ and FBI "are already working with the Director of National Intelligence to comply with the President's order."
ODNI spokesperson Kellie Wade told Fox News: "As requested by the White House, the ODNI is working expeditiously with our interagency partners to conduct a declassification review of the documents the President has identified for declassification."
Nunes said the president’s orders are clear and anticipates the copies being sent out to the press in days.
“This is really full transparency for the American people,” Nunes said.

Rubio asks DOJ to determine if Kerry violated federal laws meeting with Iranian officials

Florida Senator Marco Rubio asked the Department of Justice on Tuesday to determine whether former Secretary of State John Kerry violated federal laws by holding meetings with the Iranian foreign minister.  (AP)

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., requested that the Justice Department look into whether former Secretary of State John Kerry violated federal laws by meeting with the Iranian foreign minister, a move already blasted by top Trump administration officials.
In a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Tuesday obtained exclusively by Fox News, Rubio said that Americans “deserve to know that U.S. laws are enforced regardless of any individual’s past position.” He encouraged the department to determine whether Kerry violated the Logan Act or the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
The Logan Act prohibits unauthorized personnel to negotiate with a foreign government in relation to any disputes with the U.S., whereas the Foreign Agents Registration Act is a statute that requires persons or companies acting on behalf of foreign governments, political parties or individuals to disclose details of their interactions.
Last week, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo blasted his predecessor for "actively undermining" U.S. policy by holding meetings with Mohammad Javad Zarif since leaving office. Pompeo called it "unseemly and unprecedented" and "beyond inappropriate."
"You can't find precedent for this in U.S. history, and Secretary Kerry ought not to engage in that kind of behavior," Pompeo said.
Pompeo, who said he would leave the "legal determinations to others," lambasted Kerry for engaging with "the world's largest state-sponsor of terror" and telling Iran to "wait out this administration."
Reports of Kerry’s meetings with Zarif first surfaced in May. Kerry confirmed the two had met several times during a radio interview.
Kerry said he had met three or four times with Zarif since he left office, but had not since Pompeo took the job in April. One of the meetings was held in Norway, another in Germany and a third is reportedly said to have happened at the United Nations headquarters, which is not technically on American soil.
While meetings between private U.S. citizens and foreign officials are not illegal or in violation of federal regulations, Josh Rosenstein, a partner with the Washington law firm Sandler Reiff and specialist in lobbying compliance, told The Associated Press there are too many unanswered questions – specifically in regards to where the meetings took place and what was specifically discussed.
"The devil's always in the details," Rosenstein told the AP. "Simply offering advice to a foreign government doesn't make you a foreign agent."
Kerry told the radio show he was not coaching the Iranians on how to handle the Trump administration, but “rather tried to elicit from him (Zarif) what Iran might be willing to do in order to change the dynamic in the Middle East for the better."
President Trump, who withdrew from the agreement in May, also chimed in on social media late Thursday in regards to Kerry’s meetings with Zarif and the “very hostile Iranian regime.”
"John Kerry had illegal meetings with the very hostile Iranian Regime, which can only serve to undercut our great work to the detriment of the American people," Trump tweeted. "He told them to wait out the Trump Administration! Was he registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act? BAD!"
Kerry’s spokesman Matt Summers said in a statement "There's nothing unusual, let alone unseemly or inappropriate, about former diplomats meeting with foreign counterparts,” while shifting the focus on “political theatrics.”
“What is unseemly and unprecedented is for the podium of the State Department to be hijacked for political theatrics," he said.

Tom Arnold Cartoons

Trump could still get the Nobel Peace Prize for North Korean denuclearization – Here’s how

The leaders of North and South Korea will hold a three-day summit beginning Tuesday in the North Korean capital of Pyongyang, accompanied by several hundred officials from their two governments – indicating significant progress may be made in efforts to gradually move toward denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
This is a move we should all welcome – and it could lead to a second summit between President Trump and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un. An agreement coming out of that meeting between the U.S. and North Korean leaders could change history and lead to a Nobel Peace Prize for President Trump, an idea I suggested in an op-ed for Fox News last spring. Maybe Trump and Kim could even share the prestigious prize.
Importantly, President Trump will need to be careful to not let his enthusiasm for progress toward North Korean denuclearization get ahead of reality. Kim – and his father and grandfather who ruled before him – all have broken promises to move toward a peaceful path.
Consequently, any promises Kim makes must be verified, tested and checked over and over to ensure he is honest and that his intentions are clear. If he meets with Kim again, President Trump would be wise to be accompanied by U.S. experts on North Korea who can carefully scrutinize everything Kim says.
South Korean President Moon Jae-in recently sent a negotiating team to craft the agenda for his summit with Kim. South Korean officials described the meetings as positive and said they were told that Kim would like to denuclearize by the end of President Trump’s current term in office in January 2021.
Kim no doubt has a long list of big concessions he will want from the U.S. and South Korea in exchange for giving up his prized possessions – North Korea’s approximately 65 nuclear bombs. The North Korean leader won’t get rid of all his nukes at once – he wants concessions for every step he takes along the way. Expecting him to do otherwise is not realistic.
Kim could be in a mood for compromise because of President Trump’s show of strength in recently cancelling a proposed visit to the North by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Realizing that the détente he has set up is now at risk of falling apart, Kim may be trying to inject new energy into negotiations.
While the Singapore Summit on June 12 between Presidents Trump and Kim was successful in creating a pathway to diplomacy, there has been little progress since then on denuclearization that is truly concrete and irreversible.
National Security Adviser John Bolton said recently that “President Trump can't make the North Koreans walk through the door he's holding open” when it comes to abandoning their nuclear weapons.
But just a quick look at the evidence suggests that this month could be a historic time for not only inter-Korean relations, but the eventual signing of a peace declaration ending the Korean War once and for all. Fighting in that war was halted by an armistice in 1953, but a peace treaty has never been signed.
One indication of major progress from the Kim-Moon summit would be for Kim to agree to provide Seoul and Washington with a full accounting of the size of his nuclear warhead stockpile and missile arsenal in exchange for a peace treaty ending the Korea War. It seems clear President Trump would embrace such a proposal.
With talk just recently that Moon and Kim could jointly attend the U.N. General Assembly meeting later this month in New York City, the occasion would provide the perfect setting for them to be joined by President Trump to sign a peace treaty formally ending the war on their divided peninsula.
In just the past few weeks, Kim has toned down his anti-American rhetoric and sounded more willing to take serious steps toward denuclearization and a de-escalation of tensions with America and South Korea.
As first noted in an article in 38 North, scholar Robert Carlin points out that recent media reports out of the North say that Kim hopes “to completely remove the danger of armed conflict and horror of war from the Korean peninsula and turn it into the cradle of peace without nuclear weapons and free from nuclear threat.”
That’s a far cry from Kim’s past declarations that he would never give up his nuclear weapons – what the North has referred to as its “treasured sword” – and threating to fire missiles near Guam or perhaps even detonating a nuclear weapon in the atmosphere.
In another positive move, Kim cancelled his annual display of North Korea’s latest and greatest missiles at a military parade earlier this month. While many skeptics have said the move to keep intercontinental ballistic missiles out of the parade was no big deal, President Trump clearly appreciated it.
Kim was under pressure to display his weapons at a time when the North Korean economy is feeling the pinch of economic sanctions. With a gross domestic product the size of Vermont and a population that can’t even feed itself, Kim’s long-range missiles and nuclear weapons are the only things the so-called “hermit kingdom” can claim as national achievements.
Kim likely faced stiff resistance from his top military brass and inner circle to show off the missiles, but he decided to make a gesture of goodwill. Considering the occasion in question was the 70^th anniversary of the founding of the North Korean state, such a gesture shouldn’t be casually dismissed.
On the U.S. side, President Trump may want to compromise with Kim to get something he could claim as a foreign policy triumph before the Nov. 6 midterm elections and at a time when Trump has faced criticism growing out of Bob Woodward’s new book, an anonymous op-ed in The New York Times by a senior official in his administration, and the continued Russia probe by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
Also, with the President Trump getting ready to take on China – perhaps slapping Beijing with $200 billion in tariffs – Beijing will surely back off any assistance in the “maximum pressure” campaign of economic sanctions that Washington has waged against North Korea. Since China accounts for almost all of North Korea’s foreign trade, U.S. and international economic sanctions against the North are meaningless without Chinese cooperation.
And as Washington shifts its Asia policy more and more to take on a rising China – an infinitely bigger threat than North Korea – a deal on with Kim will look increasingly attractive to the Trump administration.
While we await the results of the Kim-Moon summit, the good news is that for once there are reasons to be optimistic about the possibility of denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. Even Republican foreign policy hawk Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told Fox News recently that he is optimistic that a compromise with North Korea can be found.
I also find myself – despite my concerns about the speed at which North Korea is becoming a dangerous nuclear power – having more reasons to be hopeful that a peaceful solution is possible.
Who knows, maybe we will see President Trump getting the Nobel Peace Prize. And if he succeeds in getting North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons he will surely deserve it.

Tom Arnold, Mark Burnett get into confrontation, report says

M. Moore Jr ?

Tom Arnold has worked on a series called, "The Hunt for Trump Tapes." He apparently had some type of confrontation with producer Mark Burnett on Sunday night.

Tom Arnold, who is working on a show about his search for the Trump tapes from his time on “Apprentice,” had a confrontation with producer Mark Burnett on Sunday night, according to social media posts.
Arnold took to Twitter to accuse the former “Apprentice” producer of “choking him at this huge Emmy party.” Burnett’s wife, Roma Downey, later posted a picture that she said showed a bruise on her left hand from the confrontation.
“Got this bruise tonight when Tom Arnold tried to ambush my husband Mark and me at a charity event. Is your TV show worth it Tom? Please stop,” she posted. Arnold responded to the tweet that he is filing a police report and “suing you for defamation.”
The Hollywood Reporter’s report said that it was unclear what event was being referenced, but the “Evening Before” fundraiser occurred on Sunday night, and Burnett has been known to attend.
The LAPD could not be reached by the Reporter or Fox News late Sunday night. Burnett has not publically responded to Arnold, the report said. A call early Monday to his office went to voicemail.
Burnett did not tweet out about the purported encounter.
Matthew Belloni, the editorial director of The Hollywood Reporter, tweeted that he spoke to Arnold’s attorney who called the confrontation an “unprovoked attack” by Burnett. Arnold claims to have a witness.
Vice announced that Arnold would be featured in a new show called, "The Hunt for the Trump Tapes" and would investigate rumored recordings of the president.
The eight-episode series follows Arnold as he searches for rumored recordings of Trump that are said to be potentially damaging. He interviews stars like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Penn Jillette, Judd Apatow, and Rosie O’Donnell, as well as, former White House Communications Director, Anthony Scaramucci.
Arnold has claimed that Trump has used the N-word and is “obviously a racist,” adding that the president’s take on the NFL is because “he doesn’t like black guys.”
Arnold has been focused on Burnett, who he noted has successful series such as “Shark Tank” and "The Bible" under his belt.
“I am going to keep hammering Mark Burnett until he shows America [the tapes],” Arnold said at the Television Critics Association's Summer Press Tour in July. “He sits next to Donald Trump and gives him cover and he never says one word. People are at the border. They are getting their kids snatched from them. It’s cruel… and Mark Burnett says he’s a Christian.”

Strzok-Page texts calling to 'open' case in 'chargeable way' under fresh scrutiny

Text messages from disgraced FBI figures Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, discussing whether to open a "case" in a "formal chargeable way" after Director James Comey was fired, are under fresh scrutiny after Page told congressional investigators there was no evidence of Russian collusion at the time, according to three congressional sources.
Two hours after Comey's termination became public on May 9, 2017, Strzok, a now-former FBI agent, texted Page, his then-colleague and lover: "We need to open the case we've been waiting on now while Andy is acting."
"Andy" is a reference to then-Deputy Director Andrew McCabe who temporarily took over the bureau until Christopher Wray was confirmed as director in August 2017.
Page, a former FBI attorney, replied to Strzok: "We need to lock in (redacted). In a formal chargeable way. Soon."
Strzok concurred. "I agree. I've been pushing and I'll reemphasize with Bill," believed to be Bill Priestap, the head of the FBI's counterintelligence division.
The text messages were provided to congress earlier this year, and among the six months of missing messages blamed on software and technical issues with the FBI issued Samsung phones.  The recovered texts cover December 2016 to May 2017, including Comey's firing, and the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
Page sat for a transcribed interview before the House Judiciary and Oversight committees in mid-July as part of a joint congressional investigation into the Justice Department's handling of the Russia and Clinton email probes.  During the deposition, Page said that by the time special counsel Mueller was appointed and Comey was fired in May 2017,  investigators still could not say whether there was collusion, according to a transcript reviewed by Fox News.
While it is unclear what "case" Strzok and Page are talking about opening,  three republican sources on the house intelligence, and judiciary committees, said the texts demanded further explanation.  If there was no solid evidence of russian collusion,  as Page recently testified, the sources questioned whether "the case" relates to obstruction, and the President's decision to fire Director Comey.  The sources asked not to be identified citing the sensitivity of the ongoing investigations.
Fox News has learned that during her July deposition,  Page declined to clarify the May 9 text.  That same month, in his open public testimony, Strozk also declined to answer questions, suggesting there is a connection to Mueller's probe.
"...To get into that would relate to ongoing investigations, which, consistent with the department's policy on ongoing investigations and based on the special counsel's equities, I'm not authorized to discuss ongoing investigations," Strzok testified.
After Strzok refused to answer further questions, Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, said: "I know, as a former U.S. attorney, that if, in fact, that's what happened, I know that whoever is the subject of that case that was opened -- now that Andy is acting -- and whoever you and Ms. Page talked about needing to be locked in soon in a formal chargeable way, well, they would have had their civil liberties violated. They would have been deprived of due process."
Attorneys for Strzok and Page did not respond to Fox News' requests for clarification about "the case," and specifically, whether it referred to Russian collusion, obstruction, or an unrelated matter.
Strzok apparently made another reference to "the case" in late April 2017, but his text sheds little additional light on its target.
"I would like to get something written as well because we have specific written direction to open the case and now a bunch of informal discussion. Need to be able to show if asked, why did you not open when the (general counsel), cc:ing the (deputy director), directed you in writing last Friday to open. Thanks."
Page responded, "It’s not. It’s still with (redacted)" adding that she planned to talk to McCabe about it.
May 2017 represents a key month: Comey was fired by President Trump and Robert Mueller was designated special counsel. In August 2017, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller, wrote the still-secret "scope memo" spelling out the boundaries for the special counsel investigation.
The texts, and Page's testimony, congressional sources said, raise significant questions about the probe's foundation and whether by the summer of 2017 it had largely shifted away from alleged Russia collusion.

Kavanaugh faces uncertain future after woman accuser breaks silence, Republicans worry in private about midterms

We may be in a grey area when it comes to what’s next for the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court.
After the allegations against Kavanaugh made by Christine Ford, the White House says it won’t yank the nomination and may even gird for battle. A spokesman for Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, says aides are working to set up additional calls with Kavanaugh and Ford “ahead of Thursday’s scheduled vote.”
In other words, GOP leaders aren’t backing down from a committee vote on Kavanaugh Thursday and an effort to confirm him on the Senate floor by the middle of next week.
Here’s the problem:
Multiple Republicans that they want to slow the process until they thoroughly addressed Ford’s charge and not just blindly charged ahead with the confirmation.
“I’m uncomfortable moving forward with a yes vote until we hear from (Ford),” said Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., a member of the Judiciary Committee. Fellow Judiciary Committee member Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., also urged caution. But Graham wasn’t in favor of a pause.
“If the committee is to hear from Ms. Ford, it should be done immediately so the process can continue as scheduled,” said Graham. “If Ms. Ford wishes to provide information to the committee, I would gladly listen to what she has to say and compare that against all other information we have received about Judge Kavanaugh.”
Multiple Democrats demanded the committee to bring the confirmation process to a screeching halt.
“Sen. Grassley must postpone the vote until, at the very minimum, these serious and credible allegations are thoroughly investigated,” said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. “To railroad a vote now would be an insult of the women of America.”
What happens now is unclear. It’s unknown if Ford is willing to appear in person or just how thorough senators need to be with her allegation. But it wouldn’t take much to throw things off kilter for those hoping for a quick confirmation. Plus, there’s risk for the GOP if it fails to take Ford’s allegations seriously or account for what she has to say. We’re in the Me Too era now. Republicans ignore Ford at their own peril less than two months before the midterm elections. GOPers know they could face a backlash at the polls if they misplay their hand.
The Judiciary Committee is split nearly-evenly between Republicans and Democrats: 11 GOPers. 10 Democrats. Flake already wants to tap the brakes. But frankly, a committee vote doesn’t mean much. Let’s say Grassley marches ahead regardless. Would Flake and other Republicans vote in opposition in committee to Kavanaugh’s nomination? Possibly. But that means very little for the actual confirmation.
Consider this:
It’s not written anywhere in the Constitution or the Senate rules that Supreme Court nominees require a successful committee vote before heading to the floor. On October 6, 1987, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 9-5 against a favorable recommendation for Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork. The committee then voted 9-5 to send Bork’s nomination to the floor with an unfavorable recommendation.
The full Senate later followed the committee lead, rebuffing Bork, 58-42. Bork became only the 11^th High Court nominee rejected by the Senate in the history of the republic.
In 1991, the Senate Judiciary Committee deadlocked 7-7 to send the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to the floor with a favorable recommendation. The committee then voted 13-1 give Thomas no recommendation.
The Senate later voted to confirm Thomas, 52-48.
One can see how Kavanaugh could struggle to receive a favorable or even no recommendation from the Judiciary Committee with just a one vote GOP advantage.
So why do committees even bother with a recommendation? Not all senators sit on each committee. Senators take into account the disposition of committees who adjudicate nominees for a panoply of positions, ranging from the Supreme Court to ambassadors to Assistant Undersecretaries for Insular Affairs. Committee positions on nominees holds a lot of sway with senators.
But properly hearing from Ford may consume time. That’s why, nestled in the back of everyone’s mind, is what unfolded in 1991 with Thomas and Anita Hill.
In late September, 1991, the Judiciary Committee concluded its hearings with Thomas and sent his nomination onto the floor, without recommendation. That’s when allegations surfaced from Hill. She accused Thomas of sexual harassment when they worked at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
After much consternation, the Judiciary Committee re-opened the hearings and invited Hill to testify in a dramatic, public session. The panel heard again from Thomas and other witnesses. Thomas famously characterized the hearings “a high-tech lynching.”
History may not repeat itself. But as the author John le Carre wrote, “Tomorrow was created yesterday…and the day before yesterday, too.”
Those pushing for a quick, painless confirmation of Kavanaugh know that what happened with Thomas’s confirmation could be a problem. In fact, those hearings constitute what was really the first chapter in the Me Too movement. Republicans are wary of being portrayed as indifferent to Ford’s assertion.
The allegations made against Kavanaugh are unfolding in an eerily similar fashion to the way Hill leveled charges against Thomas: between the end of the hearings and a floor vote. The Kavanaugh accusations even hit at nearly the identical points on the calendar.
The committee vote could be the least the GOP and Kavanaugh’s worries.
Republicans hold a narrow 51-49 advantage in the Senate. Most Republicans are on the record as supporting Kavanaugh. But the nominee doesn’t have the votes on the floor to score confirmation yet. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, has not announced her position on Kavanaugh, but fellow moderate Sen. Lisa Murkowski told CNN that she is open to the delay.
“If there are more questions that need to be asked and answered, then I think it would be appropriate for that time,” she said.
Collins just spent an hour on the phone with Kavanaugh Friday. It was a follow-up to questions the Maine Republican had after sifting through the nominee’s documents.
The call was scheduled prior to information arising about Ford. Collins discussed the accusations with Kavanaugh on Friday.
The office of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Sunday there were no changes to the schedule regarding Kavanaugh. So, if things go as planned – even if Kavanaugh scores an unfavorable rating by the committee or no recommendation at all, the Senate GOP brass hopes to hold a procedural vote to break a filibuster on the nomination around Monday, September 24.
The confirmation vote on the floor would presumably hit around Wednesday, September 26.
It’s not clear yet of Christine Ford’s charges could stall or derail Kavanaugh’s nomination. But the Senate now floats in a grey area. It’s a little bit like what happened when Anita Hill came forth in 1991. And with the midterms around the corner, Republicans worry privately about missteps with Kavanaugh and Ford could reverberate at the ballot box.

Midterm Blue Wave Cartoons