Kavanaugh has too many problems. He isn't the one for this nomination.

3:12 PM

Chairman Senator Grassley does not recognize Senator Feinstein's statement about the letter and timing. Additionally, Chairman Senator Grassley does not recognize the statements by Dr. Ford in stating she was pursuing her Congressman to present her facts.

Kavanaugh says his life is permanently damaged. That is a real possibility. Kavanaugh is trying to change the reality of his sexual assault.

There is a Ms. Kaiser. Why isn't she giving testimony? Right now Ms. Kaiser is simply a figure Kavanaugh seems to think is important. 

Violent threats are happening to both sides of this event and it's reporting. So, a favorite work with Kavanaugh is now embarrassing. Kavanaugh has no right to redefine the information from Dr. Ford or its presentation to the Congress. Kavanaugh still has his name, he needs to put this lies into perspective and admit he has lead a different life than most people believe he had. The country is due an apology.

The process has to be improved, but, I don't believe this is a circus. I find the corruption and oppression of the hearing objectionable, but, it is not a circus.

Kavanaugh made a lot of statements in his first hearing that were deceptive. He was very avoidant of the answers Senators sought.

His accusers, of which there is a growing population of women, state he is a sexually aggressive man that has no regrets about that aggression. He has not been listening to Dr. Ford and her permanent scars due to his sexual assault at 15 years old.

I am not interested in his parents. If he wants to talk about it, I want to know about his father who was a lobbyist. When Republicans are in trouble they always talk about their mothers. "W" was a repeat offender in that regard.

Twenty-six years and 1998 falls within that time frame. Oh, now tears for his children. Well, go ahead and cry it is difficult when the truth is facing a chronic offender of the truth. Six investigations by the FBI for 26 years and in that falls 25 years when the FBI didn't improve their methods in seeking sexual violence.

When he was in service to Ken Starr, Kavanaugh asked President Clinton sexual matters. This should not be a surprise to have Americans interested in character issues and those of their ability to make good decisions.

No one ever did complain about Kavanaugh's sexual aggression. He's right. Well, that has changed now. He is going to be questioned by Mitchell? 

Party took place outside Kavanaugh's map sense. He was seventeen at the time and Dr. Ford was 15.

3::54 Kavanaugh is still making a sympathetic plea before the US Senate Legislative Committee. His tears may have many meanings.

September 27, 2018
By Aldan F. Ryan

Several Harvard Law School professors (click here) said they were troubled by the sexual assault allegations recently levelled against Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh and called for further investigation into his alleged misbehavior....

...Kavanaugh has taught as a lecturer at the Law School since 2008, and a number of professors and Law School Dean John F. Manning lauded him in the days after Trump announced his nomination. In the wake of the assault allegations, though, some of Kavanaugh's colleagues at the school have joined a growing chorus calling for a serious investigation into the allegations — and for senators to vote against Kavanaugh if the women's stories are true.

Law School Professor Michael J. Klarman, a constitutional law scholar, wrote in an email Sunday that, while some have argued that Kavanaugh’s actions as a 17-year-old are not relevant to the judge's ability to serve on the Court, he does not buy that reasoning.

“I certainly agree with the idea that we should be pretty forgiving toward youthful mistakes.  But attempted rape is a really serious charge. And serving on the Supreme Court is a privilege, not a right,” Klarman wrote. “So my view, though I think reasonable people can differ on this, is that if he committed the assault, as alleged, his confirmation should be rejected.”

...“Closing ranks around Kavanaugh even before Dr.Blasey Ford testifies is proof positive that these Trumpsters either (1) don’t regard an attempted rape and a nominee’s false denials as relevant and/or (2) are ready to disbelieve her without listening,” Tribe wrote....

Everyone involved with the incident named by either Dr. Ford or Kavanaugh are known to him.

So, it is decided then, the accusations should be investigated by the FBI.

“I will not be intimidated from withdrawing from this process," Kavanaugh said. "You may defeat me in the final vote, but you’ll never get me to quit. Never.

It seems to me there are false dialogues being used by Kavanaugh to create a person under siege. No one is intimidating Kavanaugh. I would think his appearance today is testament to that. So, the idea there is some kind of terrible circumstance he is facing with intimidation at the center is nonsense.

High School drunkenness remarkably didn't effect Kavanaugh. He confesses to underage drinking. Well, that is confirmed by the women accusing him of his demeanor.

I find his dismissive nature of the FBI's interview tool worrisome.

...The memo section of a 302 is the key part. (click here) This is a combination of what the agent was able to write down during the interview and his recollection. It may list the questions and the answers or simply be a narrative of what the witness said....

A 302 is the backbone to FBI investigative interviews. Kavanaugh blows them off as insignificant. Really?? How much of law enforcement, especially the FBI, is a joke to this guy? Maybe it is a Trumpism thing, but, that only proves how irreverent Kavanaugh is to the law of the country. He is arrogant and also had a difficult settling down to answer questions.

Break in hearing.

He denies everything, but, it seems strange to me that Kavanaugh knows the same people Dr. Ford reported in her testimony, YET, they did not attend the same school or didn't travel in the same social circles. He is just too odd for words. He doesn't come across as a judge so much as a spoiled brat. I don't know another name for a man that thumbs his nose at the FBI. What the heck kind of decisions has he made regarding the FBI?

I don't buy the idea that these charges destroyed his family, except for the children, everyone is in the courtroom. He is lying about a lot of stuff. I mean does he think his family is there as spectators? 


The calendar is interesting. Calenders can be a way of creating an illusion, too. In other words, if sexual assault was a regular method for Kavanaugh keeping a calendar can provide a good reminding to what excuses he can make. I don't think he is a predator that premeditated these attacks, but, I think the calendar can be looked at in several different ways.

Senator Graham is threatening the Democrats with retribution should they have a Supreme Court nominee. Wow. That is being a political hack. I think Graham needs to resign if he feels entitled to threaten members of another party.

4:26 pm - Kavanaugh hearing to continue. Kavanaugh is corrupting the facts about other testimonies. Kavanaugh insists on lying to Senator Leahy and he wants control of the dialogues between the two.

Kavanugh is obstructing answers to Senator Leahy and he is insulting the Senator. He wants to talk about his academic and sport history in high school. This is his angelic act. He is so very perfect there is no room for imperfection. Senator Leahy wants Kavanaugh to explain his comments in the yearbook and Kavanaugh reverts back to his obstructive methods of avoiding answers.

Here is Renate:

September 27, 2018

Renate Schroeder Dolphin (click here) signed a group letter to the Senate judiciary committee claiming that Brett Kavanaugh treated women with respect, she didn’t realize that the boy she had known in high school had publicly slut-shamed her for the amusement of his fellow football players.

Then Dolphin – along with millions of other Americans – discovered that Kavanaugh described himself on his yearbook page as a “Renate Alumnius” (sic), which classmates explained as the code phrase that boys used to boast about their sexual conquest of a female student at a nearby Catholic girls’ school....

...It took 35 years for Dolphin to learn what the current US supreme court nominee meant by treating women with respect. When I was a teenager, it only took me a few hours to experience the toll of one boy’s lying braggadocio – but the damage he inflicted has lasted for more than half a century....

OMG, Kavanaugh is attacking Senator Durbin. Kavanaugh is avoidant and Grassley is his defender to his avoidance. Just a yes or no Kavanaugh so time doesn't run out.

Grassley is lying and manipulating the Democrats. Grassley stated at the beginning of the hearing that a further FBI investigation is not possible because it would be a request of the Executive Branch. The Republicans are playing politics and COVER UP with this nominees' known sexual aggression.

August 20th Feinstein meeting. Allogations over 20 days and referral of lawyers to Dr. Ford had already occurred when Kavanaugh came in for an interview. Senator Feinstein was required to remain silent until Dr. Ford was able to provide permission for her letter to be submitted. When Senator Feinstein submitted the letter to the FBI, it was then it became known to the press. It was at that time when Dr. Ford felt pressured to come forward and give testimony, so accusing Senator Feinstein of delaying the submission of the letter is false. If the press had not learned about the letter submission to the FBI this may not have resulted. The Republicans are finding LAYING BLAME on a woman Senator serves their purpose.

Brett Kavanaugh was 16 and had an ugly language in regard to bodily function. Kavanaugh and his peers seem to have graduated from "Renate Alumnis" in graditute for her friendship and it was totally benign. Well, Ms. Dolphin doesn't seem to be honored by the words of Kavanaugh. I would think if those words were respectful the authors of those words would want her to know their yearbook statements.

...According to the Times, (click here) Renate Schroeder Dolphin, who knew Kavanaugh when both were in high school, claims she learned recently that her name appeared in the yearbook at least 14 times, and she regarded the references as "hurtful."...

Yearbook entry (click here)

Kavanaugh is lying. She was not honored and obviously, she thinks it was hurtful.

If Cornyn actually believes the burden of proof to the committee belongs to those making accusations, then let the hearings be extended and allow the burden of proof be made.

Kavanaugh asked Senator Klobuchar if she ever was intoxicated from alcohol. I thought he was the person answering the questions. This guy is amazing. He is trying to deflect from him to try to begin a scandal about a US Senator to save his own butt. Talk about pathologic. Jeeze. He has no respect for anyone.

People say he is a legal genius. What kind of decisions he is rendering as a judge? 

What the heck? Now, Grassley went back to his original statement about the FBI. The Republicans have yet to take this seriously so much as defend a lousy choice by a Republican president.

15 minute break.

Wiki is interesting. Kavanaugh has been giving Democrats trouble all along as a "W" appointee. This is not new for Kavanaugh. 

...In July 2007, (click here) Democratic Senators Patrick Leahy and Dick Durbin accused Kavanaugh of "misleading" the Senate Judiciary Committee during his nomination. Durbin and Leahy accused Kavanaugh of lying to them in his confirmation hearing when he denied being involved in formulating the Bush administration's detention and interrogation policies in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks....

He is objected to by non-government organizations.

This is a white paper by "People for the American Way" in 2004:

...Kavanaugh’s relative inexperience and record, (click here) however, including his extraordinary dedication to partisan priorities, make him a particularly inappropriate choice for this critically important court....

Kavanaugh needs to receive a no-confidence vote. He isn't qualified. He obviously has an arrogant and disrespectful for FBI methods. How does a federal judge treat the FBI as insignificant?

My opinion of Kavanaugh will not change. He is a political operative and not a judge.

...Furthermore, most of Kavanaugh’s relatively brief legal career has consisted largely of partisan political activities that militate strongly against his confirmation to the D.C. Circuit. In particular, Kavanaugh has spent most of his legal career in Kenneth Starr’s Office of the Independent Counsel or in the Office of the White House Counsel in the current Bush Administration where he helped direct the Administration’s effort to pack the courts with extreme right-wing nominees. Kavanaugh was responsible for drafting Starr’s articles of impeachment against President Clinton, which were widely criticized as “strain[ing] credulity”...

This doesn't address his decisions as a judge. I don't think he has changed since 2004. I think he leans into politics rather than the facts of a case. It is why he is the nominee now. Politics. Not the truth. Manipulation of language. I don't trust him.

...On September 20, 2018, (click here) The Guardian reported that two prominent Yale professors had advised female law students at Yale that their physical attractiveness and femininity could play a role in securing a clerkship with Kavanaugh. Amy Chua reportedly stated that female law students should exude a "model-like" femininity and "dress outgoing" in their job interview with Kavanaugh. Jed Rubenfeld reportedly stated that Kavanaugh "hires women with a certain look." In a statement to The Guardian in response to the report, Chua released a statement in which she denied the notion that Kavanaugh's hiring was impacted by the attractiveness of female clerks. She stated that "Judge Kavanaugh's first and only litmus test in hiring has been excellence." Yale Law School Dean Heather Gerken has stated that the allegations reported by the Guardian "are of enormous concern to me and the school," and Yale is currently investigating the allegations....

Someone needs to talk to the law clerks and the professors. That is sexual harassment. This is the same stupid attitude of FOX News and it's mistreatment of women. Kavanaugh has a problem. He lectures from the bench. As a judge, he seeks to influence the practice of law with the people that bring their cases to his courtroom. He has a God Complex beside his sexual preference for violence and CONTROL.

His reality about Kavanaugh falls into place with the 1998 incident.

Kavanaugh refers to the insight of Chris Dudley.

...Former NBA player Chris Dudley refuted claims made by fellow classmates about Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh this week, saying he “never, ever saw him blacked out” while they were at parties during their Yale days....

No one has accused Kavanaugh of being "blacked out" by alcohol consumption. They accuse him of being drunk and getting women so drunk it affected their memory.

Kavanaugh's roommate at Yale said Kavanaugh would come in all times of the night drunk. This was not unusual behavior for Kavanaugh.

Statement by James Roche (click here) on another person's Facebook account and not in testimony to the Senate committee.

...Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s freshman roommate (click here) at Yale University came forward late Monday, describing Kavanaugh as “a heavy drinker” who became “aggressive and belligerent” when drunk.

James Roche, Kavanaugh’s roommate in Fall 1983, said in a statement posted on Twitter that they didn’t socialize together much but would chat at night after Kavanaugh would return from outings with his friends.

“It is from this experience that I concluded that although Brett was normally reserved, he was a notably heavy drinker, even by the standards of the time, and that he became aggressive and belligerent when he was very drunk,” Roche said.....

There needs to be an investigation of Kavanaugh regardless of the outcome of any vote. He is ashamed for those years enough to deceive the public in lies about his sexualized life. Why?

None of this smells right to me. It doesn't gel with a person responsibly acting as a judge in the USA. I don't like his arrogance, especially when it comes to a federal law enforcement agency. That is unprofessional at the least and very worrisome in practice.

Americans from professional backgrounds are demanding to be heard about Kavanaugh. I don't recall this level of worry for the USA's Supreme Court. There is something to this and obviously, the Republicans want to avoid any and all controversy. Kavanaugh is not a good nominee to the Supreme Court and if I ever get a chance to read his decisions as a judge he may not be qualified to be a judge period.

6:19 pm

I don't need to hear any more about this nominee to the Supreme Court. I do not believe Mr. Kavanaugh's statements and I believe Dr. Ford and the others that bravely have come forward. Kavanaugh was a personal choice for the president because Kavanaugh would favor protections for Trump regarding the Russia investigation. Enough said. 

I think there needs to be legislation protecting women when these issues come up and there simply isn't or hasn't been enough of a process through the FBI  to bring about information to the Judiciary Committee. 25 years to develop a better methodology for the FBI to investigate allegations like this (Jeeze - a hotline or something) and no progress has been made. There is a lot to do for women and we need a strong Congress to get it accomplished. 

Good night.

But, the room for the testimony is so small it excludes many people interested in this hearing.

Dr. Ford does not recall who drove her home when she left the house when she was assaulted. She recalls not having her driver's license because she would have driven herself. It is a gap of reality that can be toyed with, "Who drove Dr. Ford? What was her mental status? Etc." She exited the house, so she had enough ability to do that.

Dr. Ford engaged a therapist and someone has the therapist's notes. Dr. Ford stated the therapist's notes are inaccurate. It happens.

Senator Whitehouse states to the record and Dr. Ford what is normal for such testimony. He points out the TEST to whether or not a prosecutor would find her testimony concerned enough to consider as a crime has been met, but, no one is interested in that fact, especially the FBI. Dr. Ford provided details to allow assessment of a crime. Not done. Someone is obstructing justice in hopes of sweeping it under the rug. Quite possibly, that is how Brett Kavanaugh made it this far in our judicial system.

Senator Whitehouse states, this is an unusual circumstance in that a crime investigation has been stopped by the President, FBI Director Wray and 11 members of the US Senate Judicial Committee. More corruption. More victimization of women. Unprecedented corruption.

Senator Grassley is passing on a timeline of the testimony. 

Odd, Mr. Judge submitted a statement that can be held as perjury and criminal consequences can apply. In the statement by Senator Grassley he stated Mr. Judge did not recall a party that he was stated to attend. But, then he states Mr. Judge does not recall Brett Kavanaugh being at that party. Either Judge was there or not. Judge cannot say he knows nothing about a party and at the same time deny Kavanaugh being there.

PTSD is common to sexual violence. The degree to which that is a problem varies. Again, I stated as before, women can be productive, but, their quality of life is effected in coping with their sexual harassment, abuse, assault or rape.

Dr. Ford states she flys in planes frequently and never was to Australia, regardless, of her employer being there. She flys to many places for vacations. I suppose she flys in an out of an area to commit fraud in her testimony. Or. There is some toxic syndrome between PTSD and flying in planes. Whatever.

Dr. Ford took trips to meet attorneys and there was an understanding a lie detector would be good. She took a lie detector test.

Medical evidence is weighed with more brevity than other folks. Dr. Ford explains that therapist records with couple therapy and personal can vary because they are looking at "process" and not the story being stated so there can be some inaccuracies depending on how it is weighted by any therapist opposed to another.

Memorable aspects of the sexual assault.

The living
The stairwell
The bedroom
The bathroom in close proximity
The laughter
The escape and doing so

Polygraph report requested to be submitted to the committee and it is accepted, but, the person performing the polygraph was not allowed to testimony. It was administered on August 7th and the report is dated August 10th and now there is a date of August 26th that is pertinent in relation to the polygraph. Senator Grassley states he hopes all are satified that the request to submit was allowed.

July 6th is when Dr. Ford contacted the Washington Post. The date is important because it was before the nomination occurred. Dr. Ford states she has been trying to report her information regarding sexual assault before the nomination. Why would Dr. Ford not contact the New York Times? Whatever. Dr. Ford went on to talk to Emma Brown (click here) at the Washington Post.

During this time Dr. Ford was in touch with her Congresswoman Anna Eshoo (click here), eventually she would meet with Rep. Eshoo. 

Senator Coons states Dr. Ford was trying to notify people already stated while there was a shortlist of candidates and before Kavanaugh's nomination.

Dr. Ford stated her coping with the symptoms of post sexual violence. She has been able to be successful to her current career, but, it effected her more personal relationships in different ways.

Senator Coons goes on to bring about the reality that a person's body chemistry can effect why some things about the assault is remembered sharply while others are not. Senator Coons thanks Dr. Ford for her dedication and bravery.

Mitchell asks whether Dr. Ford approached contacted a Republican member of Congress. AND, of course, Dr. Ford's district is not represented by a Republican House member or Senator.

Objection to confidential information in the hearing was recognized and asked for question be reworded. August 7th Dr. Ford was in Delaware and then on to New Hampshire and back to Delaware. Congresswomen Eshoo's office handled the letter to forward it on to Senator Feinstein. The Senator asked questions about the incident and is a member of the US Senate Judicial Committee and a logical choice. No permission to release the letter was given to Senator Feinstein. July 30 and August 7th Dr. Ford was interviewing lawyers. She spoke to no one else. Even today, Dr. Ford has not spoken to her parents about the sexual assault. Interesting.

Dr. Ford hired a lawyer at some point to get advice based on friend's concern and recommendation.

It appears Senator Blumenthal is moved by Dr. Ford's actions and thanks her for it. He also makes note that this testimony does not have it's purpose of which one is inspiring other women to come forward and lessons of strength and respect to both genders of the USA. He states that inability to remember every second of any event is not necessarily recalled by people of any vernacular. The Senator brings forth a statement by Senator Graham in that it is difficult for a victim to come forward about their experience. Senator Blumenthal states an FBI investigation of Mark Judge would be helpful in creating a timeline to the assault. But, there is obstruction by the President in having the FBI investigation.

Dr. Ford's attorney is objecting to some of the confidential material asked for that is attorney - client privilege.

Mitchell - Dr. Ford states the polygraph was extremely stressful. The polygraph was done in Baltimore area to accommodate Dr. Ford. She attended her grandmother's funeral in the Baltimore area. The polygraph was conducted the same day or the next. Dr. Ford never had a polygraph test before. She does not know who paid for the polygraph. She doesn't know who did as of yet. Her statement is in her poorest handwriting but was her own composition. Audio and video recording was not a recollection of Dr. Ford, but, her tears were. It was conducted in a hotel conference room. There was a computer set up and Dr. Ford assumed she could have been recorded and she thought that might have been going on.

I have been running a timer in front of me during this time and feeling no stress regarding this effort. I have another appointment made before the date set for this hearing. It will take me away to at least 3PM and quite possibly the rest of the day.

Best regards to all interested in this blog. I seek to be accurate and helpful. I think Dr. Ford is amazing and applaud her for her dedication to the USA and the factual approach to her testimony. A polygraph is extraordinary dedication. She is not treating any of this frivolously and without depth to the truth.

No, I would not join the Federalist Society especially because of it's notable members.

But, if I were a man looking for a shoe-in way to the Supreme Court, it is understandable why some would join the Federalist Society. Statistically, the way to the Supreme Court is through the Federalist Society.

I really wonder why the justices, including the Chief Justice, are loyal to the agenda of the Federalist Society even after they are in their life long job. I guess loyalty to the Federalist Society is life long for one reason or another, especially political.

September 26, 2018
By Lucian K. Truscott

Would you join a club that has among its members (click here) and former members Antonin Scalia, Edwin Meese, Clarence Thomas, Robert Bork, Orrin Hatch, Ted Cruz, Samuel Alito, and Kenneth Starr? I mean, just look at that cast of characters: the judges among them believe you don’t have a right to privacy under the Constitution, and neither do the Senators or Bork, who was rejected by the Senate for the Supreme Court in 1987 because his legal views were so extreme. They believe corporations are “people” with the right to spend as much as they want to influence American elections. They believe the Voting Rights Act did too much to protect the rights of voters, so they removed its key enforcement authority. And they’re all basically fine with the idea that wealthy, white men ought to be running things in this country, and everybody else ought to stay where they belong and shut up.  

The club these guys belong to is the Federalist Society, a right-wing legal fraternity hell bent on shoehorning its brethren onto federal courts. Brett Kavanaugh is one of its members, too. He joined back when he was in law school at Yale, and he’s been a member ever since. His name was among those submitted by the Federalist Society to Donald Trump when Anthony Kennedy resigned his seat on the court. The word that is used to describe the people on the Federalist Society’s list for the court is “vetted.” Everybody on that list was “vetted” by the Federalist Society to insure they would make the kind of Supreme Court justice they, and Trump, wanted. They’ve made no secret that they want a “conservative” on the court, describing someone who will vote the way they want him to vote. That means they wanted someone who will join the other four Republican appointees to the court and vote with the 5-4 conservative majority that has overturned so many long-settled areas of the law over the last decade....

The US Senate Judicial Committee is stacking the odds against women.

Poor Senator Grassley, he can't ask the FBI to bring more light to a closed FBI report. Really? Because supposedly it is an Executive Branch of the government. Trump is declaring "Executive Priviledge" otherwise Grassley would be able to re-engage the background investigation.

That is corruption by Trump of the Legislative Processes prescribed to the US Senate in the USA Constitution.

I find the presence of Rachel Mitchell (click here) a relinquishment by the US Senate Judicial Committee to the open and free testimony by Dr. Ford. This is unprecedented and it should not be considered as fact by Mitchell. Mitchell's opinions are uninformed and lacking investigated opinion. Mitchell is meeting Dr. Ford for the first time in a government hearing and she is supposed to have a knee jerk opinion that is supposed to be weighed heavily by the committee members. This is nonsense.

I might add, we do not know the exposure of Mitchell to Kavanaugh. We are told he has been continually prepping for these hearings. The presence of Mitchell is highly questionable and even more of an attempt to oppress the free and open testimony of Dr. Ford. Mitchell is a peer and brings it's own peril to Dr. Ford. This is outrageous and full of insult by the US Senate Judiciary Committee of Dr. Ford. Mitchell is paid for by the committee, that is a disqualifier at the beginning of her involvement. I can't believe Mitchell is exposing herself to malpractice in such a government capacity. She certainly should be ethically reviewed for her presence at this committee meeting.

No one, including Mitchell, should be seeking to change the words of Dr. Ford or any other woman caught up in this disaster of a nominee.

Here is an interesting poll the Republicans may or may not have available to them today. The Republicans HAVE NO PROBLEM with the idea of sexual assault as a reality to women.

September 27, 2018
By Tim Marcin

...A poll from The Economist/YouGov asked about allegations (click here) of sexual assault made by Christine Blasey Ford against Kavanaugh, both of whom are scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday. 

The survey asked: "If it were proven that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted a woman when they were both high school students 36 years ago, do you think that does or does not disqualify Kavanaugh from being a Supreme Court Justice?" 

Forty-eight percent of respondents overall thought it should disqualify him, while 28 percent said it should not and 24 percent were not sure, according to the results from The Economist/YouGov. But among Republicans, a majority—55 percent—thought a proven allegation of sexual assault does not disqualify Kavanaugh from serving on the Supreme Court. About one-quarter, 27 percent, thought it does disqualify him, while 18 percent were not sure. The vast majority of Democrats—71 percent—thought a proven allegation of sexual assault should disqualify Kavanaugh.... 

Professor Christine Blasey Ford is testifying. She is forthright and appears to be unafraid. She is reading from a prepared statement that could not be coerced or oppressed by the presence of elements today intended to do so.

The complaints of "timing" by the Republicans is invalid. The letter was not submitted without Dr. Ford's consent. US Senator Feinstein respected her requests for confidentiality in regard to a very personal experience and choice.

Mitchell subpoenaed emails from the Washington Post. Amazing. That is an investigation of Ford and the Washington Post. Mitchell is carrying out an investigation as a prosecutor. 

Dr. Ford's eyeglasses are interesting. It might be stylish, however, it reminds me of a professional that likes a wide vision for reading and otherwise. 

It seems to me Mitchell is a clear understanding that the committee is judging Dr. Ford's competency. It appears the Democratic members will have a chance to question and clarify with Dr. Ford any statements given with Mitchell.

The issues of post sexual assault with women frequently has a complaint of concentration in achieving academically.

...trauma-related sequelae; (click here) risk factors; reporting patterns; and legal interventions, the impact on academic performance has not received adequate attention in the literature.... with collegiate grade point averages (GPAs)... In this study, the GPA is used as a guide post. That does not mean it is a definitive assessment of trauma.

Dr. Ford calls up the experience of the young men's laughter as a point that is indelible. That is an auditory ridicule. These young men treated her as an object for their amusement. That is some kind of amusement!

Music is audible and her sensitivity to it may or may not be the same as the audible laughter that was exclusively her's. Conversations with others is in question and Dr. Ford stated that was an assumption, except, when she heard Judge and Kavanaugh going down the hall after the sexual assault when they engaged others at some point. Assuming there were conversations in the house at a gathering is not wrong, it is simply what she expects to be occurring at such a gathering. Every American would expect certain behavior to occur at any party they attended.

Sexual violence is more than just a crime against individuals. It threatens our families. It threatens our communities; ultimately, it threatens the entire country. It tears apart the fabric of our communities. And that’s why we’re here today – because we have the power to do something about it as a government, as a nation. We have the capacity to stop sexual assault, support those who have survived it, and bring perpetrators to justice.

—Barack Obama, The White House Task Force Report of 2014

The statement above is testimony to why this hearing and potential investigation is important.

Amazing, others are claiming to have assaulted Dr. Ford. What next? Lying to the American public is not illegal. The National Enquirer would not be in business if lying to the public was illegal.

Senator Grassley makes an angry statement about not being informed for 45 days to the existence of this information. Senator Grassley is trying to put forward a completely different scenario that is an alternative to this hearing. He is inappropriate in assuming such information was going to be made available at all. Senator Feinstein wasn't releasing the letter without Dr. Ford's consent. The objection to timing and alternative scenario is not appropriate. It is obviously political in it's content. Dr. Ford has stated this testimony is not about politics so much concern for the country. I wish that was a priority to everyone in this committee.

continued in next entry - thank you

This is interesting. There is no reason to use those words as a battering ram of Democrats demanding an FBI investigation.

FBI investigations are a tool to the inquiry of the US Senate Judiciary Committee, not the do all and end all. I think the Democrats AND witnesses calling for an FBI investigation know the FBI does not make the final choice of members of the Supreme Court.

The FBI reports are composed by professional investigators. I find it more than interesting though that former Vice President Biden believed the FBI investigations are INCONCLUSIVE. Isn't that why there is a US Senate Judiciary Committee? The hearing is to bring conclusion to questionable components of a nominees' character and professional life? The FBI isn't suppose to decide, by conclusion, who the next Supreme Court jurist will be, it brings information to those that will ultimately decide.

I find former Vice President Biden's words profound nearly 25 years later. The entire method used to conduct background checks and US Senate investigations of these nominees are lacking a methodology that works to record the truth in a definitive way. What would occur with an FBI investigation that US Senator Feinstein requested, but, may not have obtained; was to bring in more information to the allegations of Dr. Ford. In that absence, is an outcry from the past of many more women than anyone should expect. What we are hearing in the public square is exactly the information that would appear in an FBI report including credibility accomplished by professional investigators.

Basically, 25 years has not closed the gap of information collected by the FBI in regard to sexual harassment, abuse, assault or rape. That is more than unfortunate, but, malpractice. 25 YEARS FROM DR. HILL'S TESTIMONY AND WOMEN ARE NO FURTHER AHEAD WHEN IT COMES TO LAWS THAT PROTECT THEM AND INVESTIGATIONS THAT FALL SHORT IN SUPPORT OF SUCH LAWS.

September 27, 2018

By Kristine Phillips

He uttered the words with visible agitation, (click here) overly enunciating at times to show emphasis.

“The next person who refers to an FBI report as being worth anything obviously doesn’t understand anything. FBI explicitly does not, in this case or any other case, reach a conclusion, period. Period.”

On Oct. 12, 1991, Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), then chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said FBI investigations into sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominees were inconclusive. A report from such an investigation would rehash people’s versions of events without reaching a meaningful conclusion about what had actually happened, Biden said.

At that time, Clarence Thomas, nominated to the Supreme Court by President George H.W. Bush, was facing sexual harassment allegations from Anita Hill, a former University of Oklahoma law professor. The FBI investigated, and the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony from Thomas, Hill and other witnesses....

Ms. Swetnick is probably engaging in the method to be heard for women regarding Kavanaugh into the future.

The US Senate Judiciary Committee is not acting in the best interest of the USA if they are limiting the hearings of witnesses (very qualified witnesses) and truncating any FBI investigation. Once again, a method to bring the facts to the surface is left to women to find their own platform for justice and an informed public.

The term "Anonymous Noise" is abusive and oppressive. Many voices of women are first anonymous until the ability to bring their voices to the public is realized. There is absolutely no such thing as "Anonymous Noise." That term is not only oppressive, but, sexist.

The issue with Kavanaugh is much larger than his nomination although that alone is troubling. Mr. Kavanaugh has lead a very abusive life when it comes to women. It is not only troubling in that fact this was being denied by Kavanaugh, but, also oppressed by the Republican Party. This oppression has been CARRIED THROUGH with a man that has been openly recognized as a Republican loyalist that is more than willing to use language to bring about a different reality to the USA Constitution.

The idea the USA Constitution can be engineered by loyalists to a political party while sitting in seats of power that have extreme longevity to carry such assaults though is something everyone should be concerned with if they love their lives under the flag of freedom of the USA AND it's military prowess. The USA attracts other powers within and outside the sovereign borders of the USA because of it's military might; ie: Russia.

Russia is not necessary interested in destroying the USA, so much as harnessing it's loyal military might. There is a real reason why the G8 is now the G7 and why Russia never became a member of NATO. That reality has to be cognitive when assessing reasons, motives and methods of the Trump administration and President Trump in particular. I find it more than interesting that Russia is never going to be a member of NATO, but, its satellite Post-Soviet members are and the only method open to Russia, short of war, of gaining control of their Post-Soviet states is through a new alliance with the USA bringing it's NATO status with it.

To return to the issues with Kavanaugh, the women coming forward are all well spoken and have strong feelings of worry for the country. That is the very basis of public concern and comment. They are to be valued and held in esteem and the US Senate Judiciary Committee is doing neither. As a matter of fact, I expect the committee to make every mistake in this hearing, including, trying to raise the issue of emotional and psychological competency.

Women are not handicapped into mental oblivion after a rape, but, there are issues in their lives they should not have that rob them of quality of life regardless of their ability to cope with such trauma. Mental competency is not the issue, the issue when it comes to sexual trauma of women, is the burden they have additionally in coping with the mess imposed on them. I might say, many live very productive lives and one might say have a better IQ when realized the burden they manage over time especially considering the minuscule help from laws and law enforcement.

Ms. Swetnik is very forthright in her words and she is unafraid of the outcome of those words. I believe she and others, anonymous or otherwise, have a great deal to contribute to the USA and it's legal status and future. Short of realizing that, is gross negligence by the US Senate Judiciary Committee and those that use oppression and ridicule instead of openness and fact seeking.

September 27, 2018
By Adam Edelman

Julie Swetnick (click here) — the third woman to come forward with allegations of sexual misconduct against Brett Kavanaugh — said that all of the accusations against President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee must be investigated and that he doesn’t belong on the nation’s high court.

“Brett Kavanaugh is going for a seat, where he is going to have that seat on the Supreme Court for the rest of his life. And if he is going to have that seat legitimately, all of these things should be investigated,” Swetnick said in an interview with John Heilemann on Showtime’s “The Circus.” A brief clip of the interview aired on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” Thursday.

“From what I experienced firsthand, I don’t think he belongs on the Supreme Court,” Swetnick said. “I just want the facts to come out and I want it to be just and I want the American people to have those facts and judge for themselves.”

The interview marked the first time a Kavanaugh accuser had spoken on camera....