Brett Kavanaugh's Confirmation Hearing

[fraurosena]

Unbelievable. Well, not really. Because of course Kavanaugh is linked to Russians. 

Read this thread to the end.

 

[fraurosena]

‘Incredibly frustrated’: Inside the GOP effort to save Kavanaugh amid assault allegation

Quote

Just as he did several weeks ago to prepare for his confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court, Brett M. Kavanaugh was back inside a room at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building — again facing questioners readying him for a high-stakes appearance in the Senate. 

This time, the questions were much different. An array of White House aides, playing the role of various senators on the Judiciary Committee, quizzed Kavanaugh last week about his sex life and other personal matters in an attempt to prepare him for a hearing that would inevitably be uncomfortable. 

In his answers during the practice runs, aides said, Kavanaugh condemned sexual assault and carefully avoided seeming to discredit Christine Blasey Ford, a psychology professor in Northern California who has accused the nominee of pinning her to a bed, groping her and putting his hand over her mouth to stifle her screams as he tried to take off her clothes at a drunken high school party in the early 1980s.

But Kavanaugh grew frustrated when it came to questions that dug into his private life, particularly his drinking habits and his sexual proclivities, according to three people familiar with the preparations, who requested anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. He declined to answer some questions altogether, saying they were too personal, these people said.

“I’m not going to answer that,” Kavanaugh said at one point according to a senior White House official, who said that the questions were designed to go over the line and that he struck the right tone.

The tense preparations underscore the monumental stakes of public testimony from Kavanaugh and Ford, who signaled on Saturday through her lawyers that she has accepted the Judiciary Committee’s request to speak about her allegation next week, though there is no final agreement and Republicans viewed the response as a delaying tactic.

How Kavanaugh weathers the storm — and if enough Senate Republicans stand by him — will help determine the ideological balance of the Supreme Court for a generation. A handful of GOP senators are undecided about how they will proceed on Kavanaugh’s confirmation, particularly in light of Ford’s accusation, and the party faces a broader political challenge: Keep their right flank satisfied by confirming a reliable conservative to the court, while minimizing backlash among female and independent voters ahead of the November midterms.

“The Republicans need women voters, but all hell will break loose (or it will be chaos) if this nomination unravels,” Dan Eberhart, an Arizona-based GOP donor, wrote in an email. “If we can’t get the nomination done, why vote Republican?” 

The epicenter of the scramble to rescue Kavanaugh’s nomination was inside the second-floor office of outgoing White House counsel Donald McGahn — the nominee’s lead champion in the West Wing who, in coordination with Senate Republicans, had helped engineer a rapid transformation of the federal judiciary and was about to secure a second seat on the Supreme Court for President Trump. 

But instead of making the final rounds with senators and locking down pivotal swing votes last week, Kavanaugh was calling Republicans on the Judiciary Committee and other key allies, urging them to publicly support him and determining what questions he would face in a hearing that inevitably draws comparisons to the 1991 proceedings with Anita Hill, who had accused now-Justice Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment. 

In one key call, Kavanaugh told Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) that Ford had the wrong guy in mind, saying he had not attended a party like the one she described to The Washington Post. He and his allies also privately discussed a defense that would raise doubts that the attacker was Kavanaugh, rather than try to dispute that an incident involving Ford had happened. 

In a preparation session on Tuesday, Kavanaugh faced more than a dozen White House aides in the Eisenhower building, during which aides played different senators for more than two hours. 

Kavanaugh has complained about the stories focusing on his family and has grown “incredibly frustrated” at times, in the words of one associate, but he has not sought to drop out of the running, two people who spoke to him said. He has said privately and publicly that he is eager to testify.

Yet McGahn was originally opposed to a public hearing — as were many within the orbit of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) — but it became clear one would have to happen, two people familiar with their comments said. Ford, through her attorneys, said she would be willing to testify publicly, and several potential pivotal votes, such as Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), signaled that his confirmation could not move forward unless Ford was given a public airing. 

McGahn has kept other key aides out of the process, afraid they would leak damaging material, relying on special counsel Annie Donaldson and spokesman Raj Shah. He has also talked on several occasions with McConnell, who is fond of McGahn. 

Both men, along with other senators, have encouraged Trump to keep a low profile during the fight. His tweet on Friday morning in which he directly targeted Ford was not seen as helpful by White House aides, but Trump told senior officials that it was becoming a political issue that could affect the midterms. Republicans did not believe the woman’s claims, Trump added privately. 

McConnell called Trump Friday to say that the tweets were not helpful, according to two people familiar with the call, and that they could cause new problems. As of Saturday, Trump had not said anything more directly against Ford.

Even before a final call on when or whether a hearing would happen, the preparations had long begun. Republicans wanted more information on what they viewed as potential gaps in Ford’s recollection of the alleged incident, and to describe the extent of her previous relationship with Kavanaugh, aides said. 

Republicans have also talked about enlisting female lawyers on the committee, who Grassley said would be “sensitive to the particulars of Dr. Ford’s allegations and are experienced investigators,” to the lead the questioning. They might also help the GOP avoid an optics problem of 11 men grilling a woman about her sexual assault allegation.

The hearing could end “without new conclusive evidence either way,” one senior Republican official said. “Members have to determine their threshold for credibility. And that will be the challenge.”

Senate Republican officials had repeatedly vented in private that it seemed, at least to them, Ford’s lawyers were doing more press than responding to their emails or requests for calls. Her attorneys would return that sentiment in kind, complaining in a late Friday letter to top Grassley aides that they would learn of the Republican hearing counteroffer “through the media” and got it officially through the committee “hours after those media accounts first appeared.” On Saturday they accused GOP senators of “bullying.”

Democrats are also plotting their own strategy for the hearing. Furious about Grassley’s ­decision to limit testimony to just Kavanaugh and Ford, Democratic aides planned to find other potential witnesses — such as a trauma expert — who could help bolster their case. 

If they couldn’t be heard under oath, Democrats discussed holding news conferences where those other experts would speak, aides said. A top priority, according to Democratic officials, was ensuring Ford felt supported, whether it was having enough friends and family in the hearing room with her or finding people who can speak publicly about Ford’s character. 

“We’re not accepting the premise that it’s going to be a he-said, she-said hearing,” one senior Senate Democratic aide said. 

As for questions for Kavanaugh, Democrats planned to hold nothing back. Democratic staff have been researching the broader culture of the prep academy world in which Kavanaugh lived while reading the writings of Mark Judge, a Kavanaugh friend who Ford said was in the room when Kavanaugh allegedly assaulted her. Judge, who has said he doesn’t want to testify, has written about how much alcohol he and his classmates consumed while in high school and details about other debaucherous behavior.

Democrats also planned to grill Kavanaugh on what he knew about a controversial Twitter thread from Ed Whelan, a prominent conservative lawyer and friend of Kavanaugh who not only theorized that Ford could have been assaulted by another person, but named the person whom Whelan suggested could have perpetrated the attack. 

Another point of contention is Ford’s July 30 letter outlining the allegations sent to Feinstein and Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-Calif.). Republican senators, initially cut off from accessing the unredacted version of the letter, prodded Feinstein repeatedly to hand over her copy so they could conduct their investigation. 

Feinstein gave the full letter to Grassley on Thursday, according to GOP and Democratic aides. Republicans have continued to harp on Feinstein for keeping the letter private, but she says she was honoring Ford’s wishes and, now that it is part of Kavanaugh’s background check file, has declined to release it publicly. 

“This is just bizarre,” one senior Senate GOP official said. “They want her to publicly testify . . . but the infamous letter is still not public. They won’t allow it to be.”

The most important sentence from the above article shows exactly what the Repug thinking is and why they are so desperate to get Kavanaugh confirmed. For them, it's much more than overturning Roe vs. Wade. They believe their very survival is at stake...

“If we can’t get the nomination done, why vote Republican?” 

[fraurosena]

What's this about then? Does Avenatti have more information? If so, out with it, man! 

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[AmazonGrace]

https://twitter.com/MollyJongFast/status/1043834817782181888?s=19

[Howl]

Did you know that Molly Jong-Fast is the daughter of Erica Jong, who is the author of Fear of Flying and coined the term the Zipless Fuck? 

[AmazonGrace]

That was probably the first book I ever read that had a sex scene in it

 

 

If you're not on the Supreme Court, your life is ruined?

This hearing is a sham. They have decided it won't matter if he's a rapist or not.

By that standard they ruined Merrick Garland's life and he wasn't even accused of anything but being nominated by a Democrat.

[AmazonGrace]

I can never understand this mindset.

 

Who cares if Kavanaugh is a fucking criminal or not? Gotta own the libs by ramming him through no matter what.

Occasionally Joe Walsh tweets something Nevertrumpian that I can agree with but let's not forget that he's still a garbage human.

[Howl]

There so much about this that parallels the pass given to white male Fundamentalist sexual predators of whatever stripes.  But he's such a good a) pastor b) husband c) dad, you know, all the things that make a great cover for bad acts or even being secretly sleazy, from adultery, ignoring/covering up domestic abuse to the sexual assault of children and adults in your congregation, to being a molester/rapist and worse. 

[AmazonGrace]

And you just know that if a 17 year old Hispanic kid did this they wouldn't be all, "boys will be boys", they'd be shouting about immigrant crime and deporting his whole family ASAP.

[nausicaa]

12 hours ago, AuntK said:

"Due process" applies when the state charges someone with a crime; this is f'ing confirmation hearing for a LIFETIME Supreme Court appointment by an unhinged, misogynistic president whose election, at best, can be described as questionable! If "due process" were involved HERE, we would be seeing the TENS OF THOUSANDS of documents in Kavanaugh's past that have been HIDDEN. The Ford allegation is merely the tip of the iceberg- there is SO MUCH that is unknown about this man; he is probably the least-known SC candidate in modern times, despite his years of government service.

I know I'm getting all stabby here, but I get PISSED OFF when people want to disparage Dr. Ford and suggest that she either has ulterior motives or doesn't remember! BELIEVE ME, I know from EXPERIENCE, you NEVER FORGET an assault, especially a close call like this, even though you would like to, it remains in your memory FOREVER! As far as her motives, who would endure this shitstorm, put themselves and their family through hell if this is not the truth?

If you think Dr. Ford is just making this up, then you have lived the most completely sheltered life imaginable or your head is up your ass!

As I stated before, I understand he is not being charged with a crime. However, I think it makes sense to follow well-established arbitration traditions of our country that make sense on their own terms even outside of the judicial system. 

Also, please think of precedent. If one can end a confirmation hearing because of an accusation with no other testimony, do you really believe the other side won't use paid operatives during the confirmation hearing of a liberal judge?

And that is not stating that Dr. Ford is a paid operative. I in no way disparaged Dr. Ford. This false dichotomy really bothers me. One can want to proceed with caution and with full fairness to both parties without encouraging rape culture or disparaging the victim's claims. And shame on the Dems for having this knowledge for months and waiting until now to address it. They are using Dr. Ford just as much as everyone else is. 

I agree there isn't enough known about Kavanaugh. I fully support slowing down the hearing and learning more about him. Testimony is only one part of that. You miss a wide of chasm of nuance if you only think of opinions in terms of blue/red "my side and the other side." 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[AmazonGrace]

If accused rapists can't be confirmed, who among us could be? 

 

[Howl]

Bangs head gently on keyboard; these guys out themselves right and left. 

[AmazonGrace]

Okay so "I wasn't there" didn't work. "It was somebody else who looks like me" didn't work. "It was 35 years ago and everyone rapes people so what the hell" didn't work.

The newest is "I'm a pack rat who keeps 35 year old calendars, and look, I didn't write RAPE PARTY in this calendar"

I'm sure that will be convincing.

 

[AuntK]

3 hours ago, nausicaa said:

As I stated before, I understand he is not being charged with a crime. However, I think it makes sense to follow well-established arbitration traditions of our country that make sense on their own terms even outside of the judicial system. 

Also, please think of precedent. If one can end a confirmation hearing because of an accusation with no other testimony, do you really believe the other side won't use paid operatives during the confirmation hearing of a liberal judge?

And that is not stating that Dr. Ford is a paid operative. I in no way disparaged Dr. Ford. This false dichotomy really bothers me. One can want to proceed with caution and with full fairness to both parties without encouraging rape culture or disparaging the victim's claims. And shame on the Dems for having this knowledge for months and waiting until now to address it. They are using Dr. Ford just as much as everyone else is. 

I agree there isn't enough known about Kavanaugh. I fully support slowing down the hearing and learning more about him. Testimony is only one part of that. You miss a wide of chasm of nuance if you only think of opinions in terms of blue/red "my side and the other side." 

Comparing a confirmation hearing for Supreme Court justice with a criminal proceeding is a false analogy!  So, we are supposed to IGNORE this horrific story of potential sexual assault because of what "the other side" may do in the future?  Hogwash! The other side has already hidden thousands of pages of documents, delayed hearings on the confirmation of a much more qualified individual for a SC seat, imposed arbitrary rules and deadlines on these proceedings and we're supposed to just ignore this very compelling example of this guy's behavior because of what they may do in the future? BULLSHIT!

And yes, the "Democrats," at least Senator Feinstein, has known of this story for a couple of months, BUT, she was asked not to reveal by the VICTIM, and I would expect that she did some sort of preliminary investigation herself into the life of Dr. Ford. OF COURSE she would not drop this bomb as soon as she received it; I'm sure she gets mail regularly from various people and groups that cannot be believed. Good on her! 

I'm not missing a "wide chasm of nuance" (whatever THAT is supposed to mean in this context), you either believe her or you don't. Period. I believe her, and I've given reasons for doing so above. I was a criminal prosecutor for more years than I would like to acknowledge. I'm pretty damn good at sniffing out a bullshit story, I've had a lot of experience doing it. Moreover, Kav's multiple "I don't recall," answers are the number one answers of a lying witness!

Finally, he is going to tell his story, she, hopefully, will tell hers. That goes on EVERY SINGLE DAY in America's courtrooms. And, YES, people have gone to PRISON on the word of ONE witness. This IS "full fairness" in every sense of the term. HE IS ENTITLED TO NOTHING ELSE! If his confirmation fails, he goes back to work in his cushy job as a federal judge for THE REST OF HIS LIFE! 

This Supreme Court seat is TOO important for this mealy-mouthed, hand-wringing, discourse that Kavanaugh is not being treated fairly. This seat will change the course of our country! And America deserves BETTER than this! 

 

[AmazonGrace]

I think any judge with any integrity would withdraw their Supreme Court nomination until all felony allegations are sorted out. Maybe it's not fair but the SC will lose its legitimacy if half the people are worried you have a rapist in there. This is the sort of job interview in which it's simply not enough that no one can prove you did crimes, you have to convince people why you're a stellar candidate.

[GreyhoundFan]

5 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

And you just know that if a 17 year old Hispanic kid did this they wouldn't be all, "boys will be boys", they'd be shouting about immigrant crime and deporting his whole family ASAP.

And if it was a 17 year old African-American kid, he'd have been shot.

[AuntK]

Just saw where Kavanaugh is going to produce calendars back to 1982 to prove the sexual assault didn't happen!

WHO keeps 36 years of calendars, back to when they were 17? And what 17-year-old MALE even KEEPS a calendar? Anyone? I'm throwing the BULLSHIT flag on this!

They're desperate.

[nausicaa]

1 hour ago, AuntK said:

Comparing a confirmation hearing for Supreme Court justice with a criminal proceeding is a false analogy!  So, we are supposed to IGNORE this horrific story of potential sexual assault because of what "the other side" may do in the future?  Hogwash! The other side has already hidden thousands of pages of documents, delayed hearings on the confirmation of a much more qualified individual for a SC seat, imposed arbitrary rules and deadlines on these proceedings and we're supposed to just ignore this very compelling example of this guy's behavior because of what they may do in the future? BULLSHIT!

And yes, the "Democrats," at least Senator Feinstein, has known of this story for a couple of months, BUT, she was asked not to reveal by the VICTIM, and I would expect that she did some sort of preliminary investigation herself into the life of Dr. Ford. OF COURSE she would not drop this bomb as soon as she received it; I'm sure she gets mail regularly from various people and groups that cannot be believed. Good on her! 

I'm not missing a "wide chasm of nuance" (whatever THAT is supposed to mean in this context), you either believe her or you don't. Period. I believe her, and I've given reasons for doing so above. I was a criminal prosecutor for more years than I would like to acknowledge. I'm pretty damn good at sniffing out a bullshit story, I've had a lot of experience doing it. Moreover, Kav's multiple "I don't recall," answers are the number one answers of a lying witness!

Finally, he is going to tell his story, she, hopefully, will tell hers. That goes on EVERY SINGLE DAY in America's courtrooms. And, YES, people have gone to PRISON on the word of ONE witness. This IS "full fairness" in every sense of the term. HE IS ENTITLED TO NOTHING ELSE! If his confirmation fails, he goes back to work in his cushy job as a federal judge for THE REST OF HIS LIFE! 

1. I didn't compare it to a criminal proceeding. And no analogy was made. I said it was a well regarded procedure that seems to be fair in this context.

2. I never said that the Dems should "ignore" this story. That is another false dichotomy. Please try to read what I wrote. I said that the Dems should go along with having the victim testify and allow Kavanaugh and his advisers a rebuttal, in some part with an eye towards the future. There are many options as to how to proceed between "ignore the victim" and "let Kavanaugh be confirmed."

3. The wide chasm of nuance refers to the idea that one can think the claims against Kavanuagh are horrific, despise rape culture and what Franklin Graham said, all the while still believing in rule of law and believing we should proceed with cooler heads.

4. One can listen to someone's claim and wait for more evidence to make a judgement. "You believe her or you don't" is another unfair, false dichotomy. 

I'm sorry, but I am calling bullshit on your having been a criminal prosecutor. Your writing, reading comprehension, emotional control, and critical reasoning are all abysmal. Unless there is a law school that follows the Jill Rodrigues "Randomly Capitalize Dozens of Words" style manual?

 

I'm going to check out of this thread now. The political threads are no longer interested in discussion. It's just four or five posters who want to continually post dozens of trite and unvetted memes and tweets to rile each other up, and then circle jerk each other. I don't understand what all of you are getting out of it, but have at it everyone. But remember you are becoming dangerously similar to the MAGA hatted, emotional and unreasonable Trump devotees you so claim to despise. 

[AuntK]

I knew there were Trumpsters on here, but I've never encountered them before, thankfully.

You obviously don't know many prosecutors, nor anything about writing. Writing on an internet website and writing a formal legal brief are on opposite ends of the spectrum. 

Bye Felicia! Don't let the door hit you . . .

[GreyhoundFan]

[hoipolloi]

This tweet thread pretty well nails what's going on:

"There is no fair and decent treatment of women until we break the grip on power of Asshole Culture, the palace guard of the patriarchy. Let's leave them to literature where they can be suitable villains wearing white tennis sweaters tied over their shoulders." [Emphasis added]

[Cartmann99]

Senate Democrats Investigate a New Allegation of Sexual Misconduct, from the Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s College Years

 

Quote

As Senate Republicans press for a swift vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Senate Democrats are investigating a new allegation of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh. The claim dates to the 1983-84 academic school year, when Kavanaugh was a freshman at Yale University. The offices of at least four Democratic senators have received information about the allegation, and at least two have begun investigating it. Senior Republican staffers also learned of the allegation last week and, in conversations with The New Yorker, expressed concern about its potential impact on Kavanaugh’s nomination. Soon after, Senate Republicans issued renewed calls to accelerate the timing of a committee vote. The Democratic Senate offices reviewing the allegations believe that they merit further investigation. “This is another serious, credible, and disturbing allegation against Brett Kavanaugh. It should be fully investigated,” Senator Mazie Hirono, of Hawaii, said. An aide in one of the other Senate offices added, “These allegations seem credible, and we’re taking them very seriously. If established, they’re clearly disqualifying.”

The woman at the center of the story, Deborah Ramirez, who is fifty-three, attended Yale with Kavanaugh, where she studied sociology and psychology. Later, she spent years working for an organization that supports victims of domestic violence. The New Yorker contacted Ramirez after learning of her possible involvement in an incident involving Kavanaugh. The allegation was conveyed to Democratic senators by a civil-rights lawyer. For Ramirez, the sudden attention has been unwelcome, and prompted difficult choices. She was at first hesitant to speak publicly, partly because her memories contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident. In her initial conversations with The New Yorker, she was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty. After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections to say that she remembers Kavanaugh had exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away. Ramirez is now calling for the F.B.I. to investigate Kavanaugh’s role in the incident. “I would think an F.B.I. investigation would be warranted,” she said.

In a statement, Kavanaugh wrote, “This alleged event from 35 years ago did not happen. The people who knew me then know that this did not happen, and have said so. This is a smear, plain and simple. I look forward to testifying on Thursday about the truth, and defending my good name--and the reputation for character and integrity I have spent a lifetime building--against these last-minute allegations.”

The White House spokesperson Kerri Kupec said the Administration stood by Kavanaugh. “This 35-year-old, uncorroborated claim is the latest in a coordinated smear campaign by the Democrats designed to tear down a good man. This claim is denied by all who were said to be present and is wholly inconsistent with what many women and men who knew Judge Kavanaugh at the time in college say. The White House stands firmly behind Judge Kavanaugh.”

Ramirez said that, when both she and Kavanaugh were freshmen at Yale, she was invited by a friend on the women’s soccer team to a dorm-room party. She recalled that the party took place in a suite at Lawrance Hall, in the part of Yale known as Old Campus, and that a small group of students decided to play a drinking game together. “We were sitting in a circle,” she said. “People would pick who drank.” Ramirez was chosen repeatedly, she said, and quickly became inebriated. At one point, she said, a male student pointed a gag plastic penis in her direction. Later, she said, she was on the floor, foggy and slurring her words as that male student and another stood nearby. (Ramirez identified the two male onlookers, but, at her request, The New Yorker is not naming them.)

A third male student then exposed himself to her. “I remember a penis being in front of my face,” she said. “I knew that's not what I wanted, even in that state of mind.” She recalled remarking, “That’s not a real penis,” and the other students laughing at her confusion and taunting her, one encouraging her to “kiss it.” She said that she pushed the person away, touching it in the process. Ramirez, who was raised a devout Catholic in Connecticut, said that she was shaken. “I wasn’t going to touch a penis until I was married,” she said. “I was embarrassed and ashamed and humiliated.” She remembers Kavanaugh standing to her right and laughing, pulling up his pants. “Brett was laughing,” she said. “I can still see his face, and his hips coming forward, like when you pull up your pants.” She recalled another male student shouting about the incident. “Somebody yelled down the hall, ‘Brett Kavanaugh just put his penis in Debbie’s face,’ ” she said. “It was his full name. I don’t think it was just ‘Brett.’ And I remember hearing and being mortified that this was out there.”

Ramirez acknowledged that there are significant gaps in her memories of the evening, and that, if she ever presents her story to the F.B.I. or members of the Senate, she will inevitably be pressed on her motivation for coming forward after so many years, and questioned about her memory, given her drinking at the party.

And yet, after several days of considering the matter carefully, she said, “I’m confident about the pants coming up, and I’m confident about Brett being there.” Ramirez said that what has stayed with her most forcefully is the memory of laughter at her expense from Kavanaugh and the other students. “It was kind of a joke,” she recalled. “And now it’s clear to me it wasn’t a joke.”

By his freshman year, Kavanaugh was eighteen, and legally an adult. During his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Kavanaugh swore under oath that as a legal adult he had never “committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature.”

The New Yorker has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party. The magazine contacted several dozen classmates of Ramirez and Kavanaugh regarding the incident. Many did not respond to interview requests; others declined to comment, or said they did not attend or remember the party. A classmate of Ramirez’s, who declined to be identified because of the partisan battle over Kavanaugh’s nomination, said that another student told him about the incident either on the night of the party or in the next day or two. The classmate said that he is “one hundred per cent sure” that he was told at the time that Kavanaugh was the student who exposed himself to Ramirez. He independently recalled many of the same details offered by Ramirez, including that a male student had encouraged Kavanaugh as he exposed himself. The classmate, like Ramirez, recalled that the party took place in a common room on the first floor in Entryway B of Lawrance Hall, during their freshman year. “I’ve known this all along,” he said. “It’s been on my mind all these years when his name came up. It was a big deal.” The story stayed with him, he said, because it was disturbing and seemed outside the bounds of typically acceptable behavior, even during heavy drinking at parties on campus. The classmate said that he had been shocked, but not necessarily surprised, because the social group to which Kavanaugh belonged often drank to excess. He recalled Kavanaugh as “relatively shy” until he drank, at which point he said that Kavanaugh could become “aggressive and even belligerent.”

Another classmate, Richard Oh, an emergency-room doctor in California, recalled overhearing, soon after the party, a female student tearfully recounting to another student an incident at a party involving a gag with a fake penis, followed by a male student exposing himself. Oh is not certain of the identity of the female student. Ramirez told her mother and sister about an upsetting incident at the time, but did not describe the details to either due to her embarrassment.

Mark Krasberg, an assistant professor of neurosurgery at the University of New Mexico who was also a member of Kavanaugh and Ramirez’s class at Yale, said Kavanaugh’s college behavior had become a topic of discussion among former Yale students soon after Kavanaugh’s nomination. In one e-mail that Krasberg received in September, the classmate who recalled hearing about the incident with Ramirez alluded to it and wrote that it “would qualify as a sexual assault,” he speculated, “if it’s true.”

One of the male classmates who Ramirez said egged on Kavanaugh denied any memory of the party. “I don’t think Brett would flash himself to Debbie, or anyone, for that matter,” he said. Asked why he thought Ramirez was making the allegation, he responded, “I have no idea.” The other male classmate Ramirez said was involved in the incident commented, “I have zero recollection.”

In a statement, two of those male classmates who Ramirez alleged were involved the incident, the wife of a third male student she said was involved, and three other classmates, Dino Ewing, Louisa Garry, and Dan Murphy, disputed Ramirez’s account of events: “We were the people closest to Brett Kavanaugh during his first year at Yale. He was a roommate to some of us, and we spent a great deal of time with him, including in the dorm where this incident allegedly took place. Some of us were also friends with Debbie Ramirez during and after her time at Yale. We can say with confidence that if the incident Debbie alleges ever occurred, we would have seen or heard about it—and we did not. The behavior she describes would be completely out of character for Brett. In addition, some of us knew Debbie long after Yale, and she never described this incident until Brett’s Supreme Court nomination was pending. Editors from the New Yorker contacted some of us because we are the people who would know the truth, and we told them that we never saw or heard about this.”

The former friend who was married to the male classmate alleged to be involved, and who signed the statement said of Ramirez, “This is a woman I was best friends with. We shared intimate details of our lives. And I was never told this story by her, or by anyone else. It never came up. I didn’t see it; I never heard of it happening.” She said she hadn’t spoken with Ramirez for about ten years, but that the two women had been close all through college, and Kavanaugh had remained part of what she called their “larger social circle.” In an initial conversation with The New Yorker, she suggested that Ramirez may have been politically motivated. Later, she said that she did not know if this was the case.

Ramirez is a registered Democrat, but said that her decision to speak out was not politically motivated and, regarding her views, that she “works toward human rights, social justice, and social change.” Ramirez said that she felt “disappointed and betrayed” by the statements from classmates questioning her allegation, “because I clearly remember people in the room whose names are on this letter.”

Several other classmates said that they believed Ramirez to be credible and honest, and vouched for her integrity. James Roche was roommates with Kavanaugh at the time of the alleged incident and is now the C.E.O. of a software company in San Francisco. “Debbie and I became close friends shortly after we both arrived at Yale,” he said. “She stood out as being exceptionally honest and gentle. I cannot imagine her making this up.” He said that he never witnessed Kavanaugh engage in any sexual misconduct, but did recall him being “frequently, incoherently drunk.” He described Ramirez as a vulnerable outsider. “Is it believable that she was alone with a wolfy group of guys who thought it was funny to sexually torment a girl like Debbie? Yeah, definitely. Is it believable that Kavanaugh was one of them? Yes.” Another acquaintance from college, Jennifer Klaus, similarly said that she considered the allegation plausible, adding, “Debbie’s always been a very truthful, kind—almost to the point of being selfless—individual.” A third classmate, who Ramirez thought had attended the party, said that she was not present at the incident. The former student, who asked not to be named, said that she also found Ramirez credible.

Former students described an atmosphere at Yale at the time in which alcohol-fuelled parties often led to behavior similar to that described by Ramirez. “I believe it could have happened,” another classmate who knew both Kavanaugh and Ramirez said. Though she was not aware of Kavanaugh being involved in any specific misconduct, she recalled that heavy drinking was routine and that Ramirez was sometimes victimized and taunted by male students in his social circle. “They were always, like, ‘Debbie’s here!,’ and then they’d get into their ‘Lord of the Flies’ thing,” she said. While at Yale, Kavanaugh became a member of the Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity, or “Deke,” which several students said was known for its wild and, in the view of some critics, misogynistic parties. Kavanaugh was also a member of an all-male secret society, Truth and Courage, which was popularly known by the nickname “Tit and Clit.”

Ramirez said that she continued to socialize with one of the male classmates who had egged Kavanaugh on during the party during college; she even invited the classmate to her house for Thanksgiving one year, after he told her that he had nowhere to go. She also attended his wedding, years later, as a guest of his wife, and said that she posed for photographs with Kavanaugh, smiling.

Ramirez said that she remained silent about the matter and did not fully confront her memories about it for years because she blamed herself for drinking too much. “It was a story that was known, but it was a story I was embarrassed about,” she said. More recently, she has begun to reassess what happened. “Even if I did drink too much, any person observing it, would they want their daughter, their granddaughter, with a penis in their face, while they’re drinking that much?” she said. “I can say that at fifty-three, but when I was nineteen or twenty I was vulnerable. I didn’t know better.” Reflecting on the incident now, she said she considers Kavanaugh’s male classmates culpable. “They’re accountable for not stopping this,” she said. However, “What Brett did is worse.” She added, “What does it mean, that this person has a role in defining women’s rights in our future?”

As Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings became a national story, the discussions among Ramirez and Kavanaugh’s classmates took on heightened urgency, eventually spreading to news organizations and to the Senate. Senate aides from Ramirez’s home state of Colorado alerted a lawyer, Stanley Garnett, a former Democratic district attorney in Boulder, who currently represents her. Ramirez ultimately decided to begin telling her story publicly, before others did so for her. “I didn’t want any of this,” she said. “But now I have to speak.”

Ramirez said that she hoped her story would support that of Christine Blasey Ford, the California professor who has raised an allegation of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh that bears several similarities to Ramirez’s claim. Like Ramirez, Ford said that Kavanaugh was involved in sexual misconduct at a party while drunk and egged on by a male friend. In July, she sent a letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein alleging that, at a party in the summer of 1982, when she was fifteen and Kavanaugh was seventeen and in high school, Kavanaugh pushed her into a bedroom, locked the door, pinned her to a bed, and covered her mouth to stop her screams as he attempted to pull off her clothes. Details of Ford’s allegation were initially made public by The New Yorker, which did not name her at the time. Subsequently, she disclosed her name in an interview with the Washington Post. In her letter, Ford said that during the incident she feared that Kavanaugh might inadvertently kill her. She alleged that a male friend and Georgetown Prep classmate of Kavanaugh’s, Mark Judge, was present in the room, alternately urging Kavanaugh to “go for it” and to “stop.” Kavanaugh has denied the allegation.

Ford’s allegation has made Judge a potentially pivotal witness for Kavanaugh. Judge told The New Yorker that he had “no recollection” of such an incident. Judge, who is a conservative writer, later gave an interview to The Weekly Standard in which he called Ford’s allegation “just absolutely nuts,” adding, “I never saw Brett act that way.” Asked by the interviewer whether he could remember any “sort of rough-housing with a female student back in high school” that might have been “interpreted differently by parties involved,” Judge told the publication, "I can’t. I can recall a lot of rough-housing with guys.” He added, "I don’t remember any of that stuff going on with girls."

After seeing Judge’s denial, Elizabeth Rasor, who met Judge at Catholic University and was in a relationship with him for about three years, said that she felt morally obligated to challenge his account that “ ‘no horseplay’ took place at Georgetown Prep with women.” Rasor stressed that “under normal circumstances, I wouldn’t reveal information that was told in confidence,” but, she said, “I can’t stand by and watch him lie.” In an interview with The New Yorker, she said, “Mark told me a very different story.” Rasor recalled that Judge had told her ashamedly of an incident that involved him and other boys taking turns having sex with a drunk woman. Rasor said that Judge seemed to regard it as fully consensual. She said that Judge did not name others involved in the incident, and she has no knowledge that Kavanaugh participated. But Rasor was disturbed by the story and noted that it undercut Judge’s protestations about the sexual innocence of Georgetown Prep. (Barbara Van Gelder, an attorney for Judge, said that he “categorically denies” the account related by Rasor. Van Gelder said that Judge had no further comment.)

Another woman who attended high school in the nineteen-eighties in Montgomery County, Maryland, where Georgetown Prep is located, also refuted Judge’s account of the social scene at the time, sending a letter to Ford’s lawyers saying that she had witnessed boys at parties that included Georgetown Prep students engaging in sexual misconduct. In an interview, the woman, who asked to have her name withheld for fear of political retribution, recalled that male students “would get a female student blind drunk” on what they called “jungle juice”—grain alcohol mixed with Hawaiian Punch—then try to take advantage of her. “It was disgusting,” she said. “They treated women like meat.”

Kavanaugh’s attitude toward women has come to play a central role in his confirmation process. His backers have offered portrayals of his strong support for girls and women. When Kavanaugh accepted Trump’s nomination to the Court at a White House event in July, he and Trump both stressed that he had numerous female law clerks, and that he coached his young daughters’ school basketball teams. During his Senate confirmation hearings, Kavanaugh at one point ushered into the Senate hearing room a large group of school girls whose basketball games he had coached, showcasing his warm and supportive relationships with women. Earlier this month, on the same day The New Yorker reported details of Ford’s allegation, Republicans on the Judiciary Committee released a letter from sixty-five women defending the nominee. On Monday, CNN reported that the White House has been contacting many of those women again, hoping to present their perspective to the media, perhaps as part of a group news conference.

The very different portrayals of Kavanaugh and his social scene offered by Ford, and now Ramirez, come at a crucial point in the confirmation process. On Friday, Republican Senator Charles Grassley, of Iowa, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, issued a public ultimatum to Ford, announcing that he would schedule the committee’s vote on Kavanaugh’s confirmation for Monday morning if she did not respond to an invitation to testify by a deadline, set first for Friday night and then for Saturday afternoon. Lawyers for Ford had pushed back, demanding an outside investigation of Ford’s allegation by the F.B.I. before she offered testimony, and said that she needed additional time to prepare. The White House and F.B.I. have declined to pursue that F.B.I. investigation, though Grassley has stated that his office has conducted its own inquiries into the matter. On Sunday, Ford’s lawyer and the committee reached an agreement for her to testify on Thursday.

In a statement, Kavanaugh’s attorneys Beth Wilkinson and Alexandra Walsh, wrote, “Judge Kavanaugh fully and honestly answered the Judiciary Committee’s questions over multiple days only to have unsubstantiated allegations come out when a vote on his confirmation was imminent. What matters in situations like these are facts and evidence.” Like Kavanaugh, they said that on Thursday, “testimony and evidence will confirm what Judge Kavanaugh has made clear all along—that he did not commit the sexual assault Dr. Blasey Ford describes.”

The issue has proved to be politically delicate for the White House. Last week, Vanity Fair reported that White House officials were concerned about additional allegations against Kavanaugh emerging, and cited a source who claimed that Ivanka Trump, the President’s daughter and adviser, had urged him to withdraw Kavanaugh’s nomination. Trump has defended Kavanaugh in the wake of Ford’s allegations. In a series of tweets on Friday, he sought to undermine her account of events, writing, “I have no doubt that, if the attack on Dr. Ford was as bad as she says, charges would have been immediately filed with local Law Enforcement Authorities by either her or her loving parents.” He described Kavanaugh as “a fine man,” who he wrote was “under assault by radical left wing politicians.”

Ramirez said that witnessing the attempts to discredit Ford had made her frightened to share her own story, which she knew would be attacked due to the gaps in her memory and her level of inebriation at the time. “I’m afraid how this will all come back on me,” she said. Her attorney, Garnett, said that he and Ramirez had not yet decided when and how she would convey the details of her allegation to the Senate Judiciary Committee and whether new counsel would represent her in Washington. “We’re carefully evaluating what the appropriate next steps would be,” he said. They both said that an F.B.I. investigation of the matter was merited. “I do believe an F.B.I. investigation of this kind of character-related information would be appropriate, and would be an effective way to relay the information to the committee,” Garnett said. Of Ramirez, he added, “She’s as careful and credible a witness as I’ve encountered in thirty-six years of practicing law.” Ramirez said that she hoped an investigation could be carried out before the committee voted on Kavanaugh’s nomination. “At least look at it,” she said of her claim. “At least check it out.”

 

[Rachel333]

There are now TWO more women, Deborah Ramirez from the above article and Michael Avenatti's client.