Gregg Jarrett: At Kavanaugh hearing, Democrats' outrageous conduct victimizes him, Ford and all Americans

If Judge Brett Kavanaugh was not telling the truth Thursday at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on his nomination to the Supreme Court, he is one of America’s greatest actors. 
The emotion Kavanaugh evinced during the hearing cannot be feigned. When it finally spilled out, it was real and raw. His justifiable anger at being falsely accused of sexually assaulting Professor Christine Blasey Ford when both were teenagers some 36 years ago was palpable.
“I swear today, under oath, before the Senate and the nation, before my family, and God, I am innocent of this charge,” Kavanaugh said.   
Most people who are grievously wronged react with outrage. In his statement and testimony, Kavanaugh expressed such righteous indignation. His defense of himself was forceful and convincing.  
Kavanaugh’s core message was both conciliatory and compelling.
“I don’t question that Dr. Ford was sexually assaulted at some time and at some place, but it was not me,” Kavanaugh said.
Kavanaugh emphasized that none of the people identified by Ford as attending a party – where Ford claims a drunken Kavanaugh got on top of her on a bed, tried unsuccessfully to take off her clothes and covered her mouth to stifle her screams – corroborate the accusations leveled against him. 
Kavanaugh also firmly denied claims by three other women not at the hearing that he was guilty of sexual misconduct. Like Ford, those women have presented not a shred of corroborating evidence or any other witnesses to back up their claims against the judge. One accusation came from an anonymous person who claimed to be the mother of another woman and is so weak that it can’t even be seriously considered. 
In support of his denial of Ford’s allegations, Kavanaugh offered a meticulous calendar he kept in 1982. It served as a remarkably convincing piece of evidence showing he could not have been the teenage boy who attacked Ford.
Significantly, the calendar shows that the then-17-year-old Kavanaugh was out of town nearly every weekend of the summer when Ford claims he attacked her at a house party in Maryland, just outside Washington.
For the two weekends Kavanaugh spent at home, his whereabouts were accounted for. His weekdays were equally accounted for.

Kavanaugh laid bare the partisan motivations of Democrats for ruining his reputation and destroying his family. He condemned their actions for transforming the Senate confirmation process into “a national disgrace” and “replacing advise and consent with search and destroy.”

These records clearly reflect that there were no house parties involving the people Ford said were at the party where she was allegedly attacked. While not dispositive evidence, the calendar is highly persuasive. Why would young Kavanaugh have noted all his other activities on the calendar but for some reason left off the party?
Ford also told a credible story. During her testimony, she seemed authentic and sincere. However, when two people tell different and conflicting stories, the benefit of the doubt must always go to the accused. This is consistent with an important principle by which our democracy abides both inside and outside the courtroom: the presumption of innocence.
Fundamental fairness and due process demand every accused person receive a presumption of innocence. If it did not exist, America would be a police state, where the government could accuse any of us of any crime and convict us without evidence. The liberty and freedom of each and every one of us would be endangered.
Try a thought experiment and think back to your own high school years. Imagine if someone came forward tomorrow and accused you of criminal activity long ago. How could you possibly prove you did not engage in such conduct?
Sadly, decency has eluded these proceedings against an superbly qualified judge who has been repeatedly investigated by the FBI for high-level positions in the White House and elsewhere, including for the past 12 years as a judge on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Choking back tears, Kavanaugh – a deeply religious man – recounted how his youngest daughter, Liza, wanted to pray for Ford. “That’s a lot of wisdom for a 10-year-old,” the judge observed. Senators could learn a thing or two from a 10-year-old.
Kavanaugh justifiably heaped scorn on Senate Democrats for what was he described as a “smear” and “character assassination,” pointing out correctly that they revealed the allegations against him by Ford only when his confirmation seemed assured.
Kavanaugh laid bare the partisan motivations of Democrats for ruining his reputation and destroying his family. He condemned their actions for transforming the Senate confirmation process into “a national disgrace” and “replacing advise and consent with search and destroy.”
At times, questioning resembled a theater of the absurd as some clueless Democratic senators like Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut implied that cryptic references to drinking in Kavanaugh’s high school yearbook were somehow incriminating evidence of attempted rape. That’s so ridiculous as to be laughable. 
More than anyone, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., is responsible for this abomination.
Feinstein knew of Ford’s allegations for the better part of two months. Yet she concealed the professor’s claims about Kavanaugh until after Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing had ended. The hearing was reopened to give Ford a chance to testify, out of respect for her and a sincere effort get to the truth.
Feinstein could have – and should have – brought Ford’s accusations against Kavanaugh to the attention of the Judiciary Committee without revealing the accuser’s identity. Committee staffers could have questioned Ford in a private and confidential manner, allowing a more orderly investigation to take place.
Feinstein’s explanations for her actions in refusing to disclose Ford’s claims are nothing more than vacuous excuses.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., was right to strongly chastise Feinstein at Thursday’s hearing for hiding Ford’s accusations.
“I hope the American people can see through this sham – that you knew about it and you held it,” Graham told Feinstein. “You had no intention of protecting Dr. Ford, none! She’s as much of a victim as you are,” Graham said as he pointed to Judge Kavanaugh.
But Graham wasn’t done.
“If you wanted an FBI investigation you could have come to us,” Graham told Feinstein. “What you want to do is destroy this guy’s life, hold this seat open and hope you win in 2020,” referring to Democratic hopes to capture the White House in two years.
Graham then criticized all the Democratic senators on the Judiciary Committee.
“I would never do to them what you’ve done to this guy,” Graham said. “This is the most unethical sham since I’ve been in politics. If you really wanted to know the truth, you sure as hell wouldn’t have done what you did to this guy.”
The plain truth is that it didn’t matter who President Trump nominated to fill the existing vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court. The president could have nominated a saint and Democrats would have done everything humanly possible to stop the nominee from being confirmed. No shameful tactic would have been spared.
Both Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford are the victims of the outrageous conduct by Senate Democrats. And so are the American people.
Gregg Jarrett joined FOX News Channel (FNC) in 2002 and is based in New York. He currently serves as legal analyst and offers commentary across both FNC and FOX Business Network (FBN).

California governor vetoes bills to let noncitizens serve on boards, block immigration arrests in courthouses

California Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed two bills Thursday that would have allowed noncitizens, including undocumented immigrants, to serve on state boards and commissions, and would have prevented immigration authorities from making arrests inside courthouses.
Brown’s actions come as California has sparred with the Trump administration over its perceived accommodation of illegal immigrants. An estimated 2 million people reside in the state illegally, the Orange County Register reported.
“Governance belongs to a nation’s citizens,” said Mike Spence, a councilman in the Southern California city of West Covina. “Even Jerry Brown understands citizenship has to mean something.”

“Governance belongs to a nation’s citizens. Even Jerry Brown understands citizenship has to mean something.”

Trump has voiced his frustration with California’s immigration policies, calling them “unconstitutional” and “illegal.” Several California cities have voted to opt out of the state’s sanctuary law.
Had Brown, a Democrat, signed SB-174, California would have been the first state in the country to allow legal residents and undocumented immigrants to serve on local and state boards that advise on policy areas such as employment and labor, the Register reported.
“I believe existing law, which requires citizenship for these forms of public service, is the better path,” Brown said in explaining his veto.
The proposed law would have eliminated “transient aliens” from the government code in an effort to make clear that anyone can hold an appointed civil office regardless of citizenship or immigration status.
The phrase is included in an 1872 provision intended to exclude Chinese immigrants and other foreign-born residents from holding appointed civil positions, the Los Angeles Times reported.
The bill’s authors, state Sen. Ricardo Lara and Assemblywoman Wendy Carrillo, both Democrats, said the language conflicts with the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to those born or naturalized in the United States.
“There was a time when Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans, African Americans, and Catholics were prevented from serving, and California cleared away those barriers,” Lara said. “I predict that this barrier will eventually fall.”
Lara also authored the other bill that Brown vetoed Thursday, the one that sought to prevent immigration authorities from making arrests inside courthouses.
In his veto message, Brown expressed concerns that the proposed law could have unintended consequences. He pointed to the state’s sanctuary law, which limits cooperation between local and state law enforcement agencies and immigration authorities, according to the L.A. Times.
“I believe the prudent path is to allow for that guidance to be released before enacting new laws in this area,” Brown said.
The bill would have allowed judges to stop the arrests or other activities that interrupt their proceedings.
Brown has vetoed other bills passed by the California’s Democratic-controlled Legislature. In 2013, he vetoed one that would have allowed non-citizens to serve on juries.
“Jury service, like voting, is quintessentially a prerogative and responsibility of citizenship,” he said at the time.
California has passed several laws in recent years designed to protect the rights of immigrants. Last week, Brown signed a bill authored by Lara into law that decriminalizes sidewalk vending, a business popular with many immigrants.

After tumultuous Kavanaugh hearing, swing-vote senators weigh judge's fate: 'It's a tough one'

Following an explosive and, at times, highly emotional day of testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, all eyes turned to several key swing-vote senators who remained outwardly undecided on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's fate late Thursday.
After the hearing, moderate Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Lisa Murkowksi, R-Alaska, as well as Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va. and Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., huddled to discuss the nomination, Fox News confirmed.

They talked for approximately 30 minutes before a GOP conference meeting Thursday evening ahead of Friday's planned Judiciary Committee vote on whether to recommend Kavanaugh's confirmation to the full Senate.
Meanwhile, in a major boost to Kavanaugh's bid, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., who has frequently sparred with President Trump, announced he would support the nominee Thursday night.
“While both individuals provided compelling testimony, nothing that has been presented corroborates the allegation," Corker wrote in a statement, referring to Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford, the California professor accusing him of sexually assaulting her more than three decades ago. (Ford initially told The Washington Post she was attacked in the "mid-1980s," and claimed in July the date was in the "early 1980s," but she testified Thursday the episode occured sometime in 1982).
FORD'S POLYGRAPH REPORT APPEARS TO CONTRADICT HER PAST CLAIMS -- HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE AT THE PARTY?
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, a member of the Judiciary Committee, told Fox News after the conference meeting that followed the hearing Thursday, "I think we’re going to go ahead. I worry about every one of these votes."
And Flake, who also sits on the Judiciary Committee, told Fox News: "It’s a tough one. She offered good testimony, and so did he."
"If you’re making an allegation, you want there to be some corroboration," he added. "Where is the burden? It’s like impeachment. You don’t know."
Republicans, including President Trump, have stressed that none of the sexual misconduct allegations against Kavanaugh made in the last several days has any first-hand corroboration.
Asked whether more time or investigating would help, as Democrats suggested repeatedly on Thursday, Flake seemed to reject the idea.
"Where does this start, and where does it end?" he asked. "More time, more ludicrous allegations. What does that do to the accused?"

"It’s a tough one. She offered good testimony, and so did he."
- Arizona Republican Sen. Jeff Flake

Kavanaugh, occasionally in tears, emphasized on Thursday that the barrage of threats and uncorroborated accusations against him had taken a permanent toll on his family and reputation.
Sens. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Jerry Moran, R-Kan., announced they would vote to confirm Kavanaugh after the hearing.
There were indications late Thursday that other crucial senators remained undecided. It is not necessary for Kavanaugh to secure the majority approval of the Judiciary Committee in order to advance to the full Senate and be confirmed; in 1991, Clarence Thomas was not recommended by the committee before ultimately becoming a justice.

"There have been no decisions," Manchin reportedly said outside the hearing room. "There are some concerns that people have, and we’re going to try to close the loop."
WATCH: IN DRAMATIC MOMENT, LINDSEY GRAHAM UNLOADS ON 'SHAM' HEARING, REMINDS DEMS HE VOTED FOR KAGAN, SOTOMAYOR
Republicans hold a narrow 51-49 majority in the Senate, and can only afford one defection in their bid to confirm Kavanaugh, assuming they secure no Democratic votes.
After hours of testimony from Kavanaugh and Ford, Manchin said simply, "both witnesses were credible," according to CNN.

Fox News has learned that Republicans' tentative plan is to hold a final confirmation vote on Kavanaugh before the full Senate sometime next week.

On Thursday morning, Collins voiced reservations about moving forward on Kavanaugh's confirmation without issuing a subpoena to his friend Mark Judge, who Ford claimed was in the room when he allegedly assaulted her in the 1980s.
Murkowksi was photographed huddling with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on Capitol Hill earlier in the day, sparking a flurry of speculation on social media.
Collins and Murkowski are not on the Judiciary Committee, so they will not participate in the planned vote Friday morning.
Flake didn't ask Kavanaugh any questions during the hearing. Instead, he opted to give a general statement without committing firmly one way or the other on his nomination. Flake previously had insisted that Ford be allowed to testify before an up-or-down vote on Kavanaugh.

WATCH: KAVANAUGH, DURBIN SPAR IN DRAMATIC MOMENT OVER FBI PROBE
In an apparent effort to appeal to senators on the fence, as well as to clear his name and unload on what he described as a deeply unfair and partisan process, Kavanaugh abandoned much of his prepared remarks to blast the proceedings as a "disgrace" and a "circus."
He later sparred with Democratic senators as they questioned him, saying his family and reputation had been "destroyed" by the uncorroborated claims suddenly brought against him. The hearing ended Thursday evening after eight hours worth of testimony from Ford and Kavanaugh.
"This confirmation process has become a national disgrace," he told the committee. "The Constitution gives the Senate an important role in the confirmation process. But you have replaced advise and consent with search and destroy."

"This confirmation process has become a national disgrace."
- Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., also let loose on his Democratic colleagues during the proceedings, which he called a "sham" hearing to probe sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh, in a display that earned him praise from the White House and scorn from the left.
Graham alleged the Democrats' handling was all about politics.
"This is the most unethical sham since I've been in politics," a visibly angry Graham said from the dais while pointing at Democratic senators. "And if you really wanted to know the truth, you sure as hell wouldn't have done what you've done to this guy."

WATCH: TOP DEMOCRAT SAYS KAVANAUGH DOESN'T DESERVE DUE PROCESS BECAUSE HE'S A CONSERVATIVE
Ford first brought her allegations to Feinstein's attention in July, but the California Democrat didn't disclose the allegations to her Senate colleagues or federal authorities until days before a crucial Judiciary Committee vote on Kavanaugh's confirmation earlier this month. Republicans have accused Feinstein's office of compromising Ford's anonymity by sitting on the allegations until she could deploy them in a leak for maximum political gain.
In a dramatic moment Thursday, Feinstein claimed under questioning from Sens. Ted Cruz and John Cornyn, R-Tex., that the full text of Ford's letter had never leaked, even though The Washington Post reported earlier this month that it had obtained the full text of the letter. Feinstein suggested Ford's friends, not her staffers, had leaked information about the letter.
WATCH CRUZ, CORNYN GRILL FEINSTEIN OVER LEAK
None of the witnesses Ford has identified as being present at the party where she was allegedly assaulted -- including Leland Ingham Keyser, her best friend at the time -- have said they remember anything about the episode. Asked about Keyser's statement, Ford suggested on Thursday her friend was having medical issues.
In her testimony earlier in the day, Ford -- who had told Feinstein in her July letter that the party included "included me and 4 others" -- changed the tally, and told senators that there were four boys there, in addition to her female friend. (Ford had previously told her therapist in 2012 there were four boys in the room during her alleged assault, and later said her therapist had inaccurately recorded her statements).
In an August note Ford wrote in advance of a polygraph exam she took at the direction of her lawyers, she maintained that "there were 4 boys and a couple of girls" at the party, again contradicting her letter to Feinstein in July.
Ford also claimed she had been unaware of committee Republicans' offers, which were communicated publicly and to her attorneys, to fly out to California to meet with her so that they could expedite the hearings.

Mark Judge, Kavanaugh's friend, responds to Ford's testimony in letter through lawyer

Mark Judge, the high school friend of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, wrote in a letter Thursday that he does “not recall the events” described by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford during her testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
“I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes,” he wrote.
Judge directed the letter, “under penalty of felony,” to Chairman of the Judiciary Committee Chuck Grassley and Ranking Member Diane Feinstein, through his attorney Barbara Van Gelder.
“I did not ask to be involved in this matter nor did anyone ask me to be involved,” the letter said, and referred to his previous letter sent on Sept. 18.
The letter said he has told the committee that he does not want to comment about the events publicly.
“As a recovering alcoholic and a cancer survivor, I have struggled with depression and anxiety,” his letter said. “As a result, I avoid public speaking.”
Van Gelder told The Washington Post on Wednesday that Judge needs to avoid the spotlight for his health.
“I told him to leave town. He is being hounded. He is a recovering alcoholic and is under unbelievable stress,” Judge's attorney told the paper. “He needed for his own health to get out of this toxic environment and take care of himself."
Judge also said in the letter that he and Kavanaugh were friends in high school but have not spoken directly in several years.
Ford claimed Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed during a party in Maryland, attempted to remove her clothes and put his hand over her mouth to prevent her from screaming. She said he and Judge had also turned the music up to a loud volume.
Ford claimed she was able to escape to a bathroom and then outside of the house when Judge jumped into the fray and sent everyone in the room "tumbling."
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., asked Kavanaugh during the hearing if he was one of the characters, Bart O’Kavanaugh, in Judge’s book called “Wasted: Tales of a Gen X Drunk,” which was written in 1997. Kavanaugh said the book is a work of fiction and Leahy would “have to ask him [Judge].”
Judge has become an author, filmmaker and journalist who has written for conservative outlets including The Daily Caller and The Weekly Standard, according to reports.
Following the explosive and, at times, highly emotional day of testimony, all eyes turned to several key swing-vote senators who remained outwardly undecided on Kavanaugh's fate late Thursday.
After the hearing, moderate Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Lisa Murkowksi, R-Alaska, as well as Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va. and Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., huddled to discuss the nomination, Fox News confirmed.
They talked for approximately 30 minutes before a GOP conference meeting Thursday evening ahead of Friday's planned Judiciary Committee vote on whether to recommend Kavanaugh's confirmation to the full Senate.

Slimy Backstabbing Democrat Cartoons

Staffers at DC restaurant where Cruz was confronted get death threats: owner

The owner of a Washington, D.C. restaurant where Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and his wife were heckled by a group of protesters earlier this week, said staffers have received “life-threatening” messages in the wake of the incident.
“Personally, I am blessed to work with the staff who have handled the harassment and life-threatening messages we and our families have received in the wake of the event,” Fabio Trabocchi, the owner, said in a statement on Wednesday posted to Twitter. “They have shown remarkable grit and calm, It is scary to hear anger directed at you and those you love --  I am lucky to work with brave people who respect our work.”
Cruz and his wife were dining at Fiola on Monday when a group appeared to chastise the Senator over Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, who is facing multiple sexual assault allegations. Two one-minute video clips were posted to the Twitter page of a group called “Smash Racism DC,” where protesters could be heard chanting, “We believe survivors!”
An activist shouted can be hear shouting “Sexist, racist, anti-gay!” while a woman quizzed the Texas GOP senator whether he believes the women making the allegations against Kavanaugh. The federal judge has denied all allegations made against him.
The couple was escorted out of the restaurant through a side entrance, before being brought back in later through the kitchen after to enjoy the rest of their meal, according to the statement.
While Trabocchi noted he is not in the business of “hospitality” or “public safety,” the restaurant owner said he has implemented additional safety measures to “ensure the ongoing and future privacy, safety and security for our staff and guests.”
“We did our best Monday night to show DC what it means to live, love and work in a city where all voices are welcome – and quite necessary – to make a republic work,” the statement read. “It takes everyone, Just like any family. It requires respect, listening, and sometimes a little etiquette, like keeping your elbows and politics off the dinner table.”

Republicans stand by Kavanaugh as details on Avenatti's new client emerge

Republicans signaled Tuesday they aren’t abandoning Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination for the Supreme Court as they cast doubt on graphic new allegations made public by attorney Michael Avenatti, and as Kavanaugh insisted he’s never been involved in any sexual assault.
Avenatti on Tuesday tweeted a "sworn declaration" from a woman named Julie Swetnick who claimed the Supreme Court nominee was involved in "gang" rapes in the early 1980s. She claimed Kavanaugh was "present" when she became a "victim" of one of those alleged assaults. Swetnick’s accusations followed claims of sexual misconduct during high school and college against Kavanaugh from two other women. Kavanaugh has denied all the accusations, and responded to Avenatti’s claim by saying: “This is ridiculous and from the Twilight Zone. I don’t know who this is and this never happened.”
Late Wednesday, The Wall Street Journal reported that approximately 10 years ago, Swetnick retained the law firm of Katz, Marshall & Banks to represent her in dispute with her former employer, insurance company New York Life, over a sexual harassment complaint Swetnick had brought.
Deborah Katz, one of the firm's founding partners, is currently representing another Kavanaugh accuser, Christine Blasey Ford.
Meanwhile, Politico reported that a former boyfriend of Swetnick had sought a restraining order against her in 2001. In an interview with the publication, Richard Vinneccy said that Swetnick had threatened him after they broke up and he married his current wife.
"I have a lot of facts, evidence, that what she’s saying is not true at all," said Vinneccy, who declined to comment further on Swetnick's claims against Kavanaugh.
According to The Washington Post, in 2015, the state of Maryland filed a lien against Swetnick's property, citing more than $30,000 in unpaid taxes dating back to 2008. Court records obtained by The Post showed that the total amount owed, nearly $63,000, was resolved in December 2016, although the paper reported it was unclear exactly how.
And, in 2017, the federal government filed a lien on Swetnick's property, citing a $40,000 unpaid tax bill from 2014, according to The Post. That lien reportedly was released in March 2018, and the debt was similarly satisfied.
Emails obtained Wednesday by Fox News between Mike Davis, the chief counsel for nominations working for Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, and attorney Michael Avenatti showed that Grassley's staff made outreach efforts to obtain a statement from Swetnick.
In response to Avenatti's claim that the committee has "wasted days in your rush to confirm Brett Kavanaugh," as well as his demands for an FBI investigation, a polygraph examination of Kavanaugh, and other requests, Davis outlined the steps the Judiciary Committee took in response to his client's allegations.
"You are simply wrong that the committee investigators are just now starting an inquiry into your allegations," Davis told Avenatti. "Judge Kavanaugh has fully cooperated with committee investigators, including answering every question posed. Is your client willing to have a similar interview with committee investigators?"
For his part, President Trump fired back at Avenatti – who represents adult-film star Stormy Daniels in a suit against the president, and who is flirting with a 2020 Democratic White House bid – as someone with a history of “making false accusations.”
“Avenatti is a third rate lawyer who is good at making false accusations, like he did on me and like he is now doing on Judge Brett Kavanaugh,” Trump tweeted. “He is just looking for attention and doesn’t want people to look at his past record and relationships - a total low-life!”
Speaking to reporters in New York, the president expressed hope Kavanaugh would be confirmed by the Senate soon, despite the allegations.
“Hopefully over the next couple of days it will be settled up and solved and we will have a Supreme Court justice who will go down as one of our greatest ever,” the president said.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, tweeted that he hopes people will “highly suspicious of this allegation presented by Michael Avenatti,” questioning parts of Swetnick’s story.
“I have a difficult time believing any person would continue to go to – according to the affidavit – ten parties over a two-year period where women were routinely gang raped and not report it,” Graham, R-S.C., tweeted.
Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake, a key Republican vote, said Wednesday during a floor speech that he will make up his mind after Thursday’s planned committee hearing with both Kavanaugh and Ford.
Ford has accused Kavanaugh of trying to force himself on her during a party while she was 15 and he was 17. Kavanaugh has also been accused by a second woman of exposing himself during a college party at Yale, something he has denied.
“I am not psychic,” Flake said. “I am not gifted with clairvoyance. Given these limitations, I'll have to listen to the testimony before I make up my mind about the testimony.”
So far, despite the chaos caused by the Avenatti allegations, the hearing is still scheduled for Thursday morning.
Meanwhile, Democrats seized on Avenatti’s allegation, with all 10 Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee urging Trump to “immediately” withdraw the nomination or order an FBI investigation.
“We are writing to request that you immediately withdraw the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court or direct the FBI to re-open its background investigation and thoroughly examine the multiple allegations of sexual assault,” the Democrats said.
One Democrat, Sen. Jeff Merkley, said he was going so far as to file a federal lawsuit asking the courts to stop Kavanaugh’s confirmation process until “Kavanaugh’s full record is available for public scrutiny.
“The events of the past ten days have only underscored how critical it is that the Senate conduct a careful and comprehensive review of a nominee before giving its consent,” Merkley, D-Ore., said.
In several tweets, Avenatti fired back at the president’s comments about him, saying, “Trump pretends he is a tough guy. He is nothing of the kind.”
Kavanaugh, in prepared testimony released ahead of Thursday’s hearing, describes sexual assault as “horrific” and “morally wrong” and says he’s “never sexually assaulted anyone – not in high school, not in college, not ever.”
“I am here this morning to answer these allegations and to tell the truth,” Kavanaugh says in remarks released by the committee. “And the truth is that I have never sexually assaulted anyone – not in high school, not in college, not ever.”
In his testimony, Kavanaugh admits to “juvenile misbehavior” that makes him “cringe now” but says “that’s not why we are here today.”
“What I’ve been accused of is far more serious than juvenile misbehavior,” Kavanaugh says. “I never did anything remotely resembling what Dr. Ford describes.”
Ahead of the hearing, the Senate Judiciary Committee released copies of the calendar full of hand-written notes from May, June, July and August of 1982.
The calendar reflects the daily activities of a typical 17-year-old boy: plans to mow the grass, go to the movies, play sports, go to “beach week” and attend summer camp. It includes mentions of prom, being grounded, birthday parties, lifting weights and interviewing at Yale and Brown universities.
Speaking to the Washington Post, Ford said she believes the allegations she has detailed happened during the summer of 1982, though she can’t remember where exactly the party was or how she got there.
It’s been suggested that the calendars may be used by Kavanaugh to suggest nothing in it alludes to the type of party described by Ford.
Meanwhile, ahead of the hearing, Ford’s attorneys have released statements from four other people who recount Ford telling them about the accusations over the last few years. None of those people, though, claim to have had knowledge in 1982. Ford says she didn’t tell anyone until 2012.

Avenatti orchestrates coverage while unveiling third Kavanaugh accuser

 

Michael Avenatti managed to make it all about him.
What a shock.
The way he handled the third accuser against Brett Kavanaugh yesterday undercut his client and damaged her case. By teasing this on Twitter, by not making Julie Swetnick available, and by phoning into talk shows instead, Avenatti turned the whole thing into a spectacle.
Kavanaugh quickly shot back that he doesn't even know the woman: "This is ridiculous and from the Twilight Zone." And President Trump, calling it a "disgrace," took aim at the attorney, calling Avenatti "a lowlife."
Now I'm not prejudging Swetnick's allegations, and no one else should, either. Her affidavit is quite chilling. But it does raise certain questions that he hasn't answered.
Unlike Christine Ford, who wrote to members of Congress, Swetnick has spoken only through Avenatti. Unlike Deborah Ramirez, who spoke to the New Yorker, which acknowledged issues with her account, Swetnick hasn't talked to a journalist or any outside investigator.
Swetnick, who has a security clearance and worked for Treasury and the IRS, makes a series of stunning charges in her declaration.
She says she saw Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge at numerous house parties in the early 1980s, where she says the Supreme Court nominee engaged in "abusive behavior." Swetnick says Kavanaugh drank excessively, made "crude sexual comments," and engaged in "fondling and grabbing of girls without their consent ... grinding against girls, attempting to remove or shift their clothing to expose private body parts."
She says Kavanaugh and Judge spiked the punch with alcohol and drugs, and recalled seeing them among boys lined up "waiting for their 'turn' with a girl inside the room."
And then she gets to her own alleged assault, saying she was incapacitated without her consent, "unable to fight off boys raping me." Swetnick says Kavanaugh and Judge were present during this alleged gang rape but does not say they participated.
She also says she told at least two people about this shortly afterward but does not name them. If Avenatti had corroborating statements from them, I'm sure he would have released them.
What I, or any other journalist, would ask Swetnick:
If girls were being groped, drugged, verbally abused and even raped by Kavanaugh and his friends at these parties, why did you keep going to them?
And since such horrendous conduct would have been witnessed by many students at these house parties, why has no one else corroborated either what you say or what Ford has said?
Avenatti succeeded in one respect, generating intensive coverage of Swetnick's account. And it will obviously be brought up at today's Judiciary Committee hearing, which originally was going to be devoted to just the two witnesses, Christine Ford and Brett Kavanaugh.
The fact that there are now three accusers could be seen as bolstering the case against Kavanaugh. But I suspect it's having the opposite effect, coming at the last minute: conflating all the claims (even involving his yearbook) and neutralizing the strongest allegations by making them seem part of a giant pile-on.
I do think the Senate Republicans made a tactical misstep by announcing the vote on Kavanaugh would be Friday. That made it sound like they're just going through the motions with today's hearing and will vote to confirm the judge regardless of what Ford says.
As the pols and pundits continue their partisan attacks — either saying he's a liar or the women are lying — it almost seems like the details no longer matter, only who's got the political muscle.
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m.). He is the author "Media Madness: Donald Trump, The Press and the War Over the Truth." Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.

Ahead of pivotal Senate hearing, witnesses surface to say Christine Ford may have mistaken them for Kavanaugh

As an extraordinary series of uncorroborated, lurid last-minute allegations threatens to derail his confirmation to the Supreme Court, nominee Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Ford, the California professor accusing him of sexually assaulting her more than three decades ago, are set to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday morning.
The proceedings may be upended by late-breaking developments: In a statement released Wednesday evening, Judiciary Committee Republicans revealed that on Monday, they conducted their "first interview with a man who believes he, not Judge Kavanaugh, had the encounter with Dr. Ford in 1982 that is the basis of his [sic] complaint." They conducted a second interview the next day.
On Wednesday, Republicans said in the statement, they received a "more in-depth written statement from the man interviewed twice previously who believes he, not Judge Kavanuagh, had the encounter in question with Dr. Ford." GOP investigators also spoke on the phone with another man making a similar claim.
Ford has previously said there is "zero chance" she would have confused Kavanaugh for anyone else.
In response, an aide to Democrats on the Judiciary Committee reportedly unloaded on Senate Republicans: "Republicans are flailing," the aide said, according to NBC News. "They are desperately trying to muddy the waters. ... Twelve hours before the hearing they suggest two anonymous men claimed to have assaulted her. Democrats were never informed of these assertions in interviews, in violation of Senate rules."
The aide, before again calling for an FBI probe into Ford's accusations, added, "This is shameful and the height of irresponsibility."
But Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, shot back on Twitter late Wednesday, writing, "Some might find it exceedingly difficult to imagine Judiciary Committee Democrats expressing this complaint with straight faces."
Ford first brought her allegations to the attention of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., in July, but Feinstein didn't disclose the allegations to her Senate colleagues or federal authorities until days before a crucial Judiciary Committee vote on Kavanaugh's confirmation earlier this month. Republicans have accused Feinstein's office of compromising Ford's anonymity by sitting on the allegations until she could deploy them for maximum political gain.
The stakes for Kavanaugh could not be higher: Key swing-vote senators have said Thursday's hearing, which will begin at 10:00 a.m. ET, presents a pivotal opportunity to assess Ford's credibility and determine whether to advance Kavanaugh to the nation's highest court.

The hearing, which for days had been in doubt, will be a chance for the public to see Ford, in person, explain in detail what she claims happened at the Maryland house party in 1982 where Kavanaugh allegedly jumped on top of her and tried to muffle her screams -- and why she didn't tell anyone about the episode until 2012.
The proceedings will commence with opening statements from Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and ranking committee member Feinstein. After taking an oath, Ford will deliver the prepared remarks she has already provided publicly, according to a schedule provided by the committee. Each senator on the committee will then be afforded a single five-minute round of questions, with the opportunity to ask questions alternating between Democrats and Republicans.

Republicans have retained Rachel Mitchell, an experienced sex-crimes prosecutor, to handle some of their questioning, saying it will help avoid an overtly political atmosphere. Grassley has hammered Democrats, including Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., for "grandstanding" during the confirmation hearings earlier this month.
WATCH: CORY BOOKER COMPARES HIMSELF TO GLADIATOR 'SPARTACUS,' CLAIMS HE'S RISKING EXPULSION BY RELEASING CONFIDENTIAL KAVANAUGH DOCS
Democrats have indicated they intend to ask their own questions. After Ford's testimony is completed, the process will repeat for Kavanaugh.

"It's bad -- it's doing damage to the Supreme Court."
- Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh

In her prepared remarks, which Ford's attorney's released in advance on Wednesday, Ford will tell senators that she "thought that Brett [Kavanaugh] was accidentally going to kill me," and "I believed he was going to rape me."
She will explain that she remembers "four boys" being at the party, including one "whose name I cannot recall." The people she did name -- Kavanaugh and his classmates Mark Judge and P.J. Smyth -- have denied under penalty of felony knowing anything about the alleged episode.
Ford will also describe one girl, "my friend Leland Ingham," as also in attendance. Ingham, in a previously released statement, has also denied knowing Kavanaugh or having information about the alleged assault.
POLYGRAPH REPORT REVEALS APPARENT INCONSISTENCIES IN FORD'S CLAIMS

Ford's letter to Feinstein in July, however, gave a different tally, saying that the gathering "included me and 4 others."
Additionally, in a handwritten statement she provided the former FBI agent who administered her polygraph exam in August, Ford wrote "there were 4 boys and a couple of girls" at the party -- again apparently contradicting her letter to Feinstein.
Republicans, through Mitchell, are expected to question Ford on the apparent discrepancies.
Ford is also expected to tell senators that she finally decided to disclose the alleged assault during a therapy session in 2012 because during a remodeling of her house that year, she insisted on installing a "second front door" -- leaving her husband and others wondering why.

Additionally, questions have surfaced concerning the credibility of some of Kavanaugh's other accusers, who will not be present Thursday because they have not responded to overtures from committee Republicans.
For example, Julie Swetnick, who emerged Wednesday to accuse Kavanaugh of participating in "gang rapes" and rape "trains" in the 1980s, had a restraining order filed against her by an ex-boyfriend, Politico reported.
KAVANAUGH FIGHTS BACK, TELLS INVESTIGATORS ALLEGATIONS ARE A 'DISGRACE' THAT WILL KEEP GOOD PEOPLE OUT OF PUBLIC SERVICE
“Right after I broke up with her, she was threatening my family, threatening my wife and threatening to do harm to my baby at that time,” Richard Vinneccy told Politico. "I know a lot about her. ... She’s not credible at all. Not at all."
Swetnick is represented by anti-Trump lawyer Michael Avenatti, who has refused multiple requests by the Senate Judiciary Committee to interview her in the past week. On Wednesday afternoon, 60 men and women who attended Kavanaugh's high school or sister schools signed a letter saying they had never heard of Swetnick or anything like the overt, systemic gang raping that she described.
According to The Washington Post, both the state of Maryland and the federal government have filed since-resolved liens on her property in recent years for unpaid taxes totalling tens of thousands of dollars. It was not immediately clear exactly how Swetnick, who has held multiple security clearances relating to her work with the government, resolved both liens.
Republicans, including President Trump, have repeatedly pointed out that none of the sexual misconduct allegations against Kavanaugh has first-hand corroboration. In The New Yorker on Sunday, former Kavanaugh classmate Deborah Ramirez claimed that Kavanaugh had exposed his penis to her at a party decades ago, even as her close college friend denied ever hearing about the episode and suggested she was making the claim for political reasons.
Ramirez, who also did not immediately respond to GOP Judiciary Committee inquiries, has acknowledged not being sure whether Kavanaugh had assaulted her until last week, after she spent days consulting with her attorney.
Several other allegations emerged this week. On Tuesday, a constituent told the office of Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., that in 1985, two "heavily inebriated men" referred to as "Brett and Mark" had sexually assaulted a "close friend" on a boat.
The constituent, whose name was redacted in a document release by the Judiciary Committee but uncovered through tweets cited by the committee, recanted the claim Wednesday night on Twitter -- but several media outlets continued to report the allegations for hours afterwards.
In Twitter posts, the person making the accusation had also evidently advocated removing President Trump from the White House by means of military coup. On Wednesday, a post on the accuser's Twitter account read, "Do everyone who is going crazy about what I had said I have recanted because I have made a mistake and apologize for such mistake."
In a separate case, Kavanaugh was asked by GOP investigators this week specifically about a new claim in a letter received by Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., from an anonymous individual apparently in Denver, alleging that Kavanaugh "shoved" someone up against a wall "very aggressively and sexually" during an outing in front of four witnesses. Gardner's office received the letter on Sept. 22."
"We're dealing with an anonymous letter about an anonymous person and an anonymous friend," Kavanaugh said. "It's ridiculous. Total Twilight Zone. And no, I've never done anything like that.
"It's bad -- it's doing damage to the Supreme Court," Kavanaugh added. "It's doing damage to the country. It's doing damage to this process. It's become a total feeding frenzy, you know? Every -- just unbelievable."

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

Don't Know When, How, or Why Cartoons