Ford’s attorney, Debra Katz, <a href="https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/10/05/politics/christine-blasey-ford-lawyers-brett-kavanaugh/index.html"> told CNN </a> that Ford only wanted to speak with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, regarding Judge Kavanaugh. Ford does not want the situation to "drag on into the next Congress should Democrats end up winning control on Capitol Hill”.
When asked about impeachment proceedings, attorney Debra Katz said: "Professor Ford has not asked for anything of the sort. What she did was to come forward and testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee and agree to cooperate with any investigation by the FBI, and that's what she sought to do here."
"She does not want him to be impeached?" CNN's Dana Bash asked.
"No," Katz replied flatly.
Ford's attorney Lisa Banks said Ford feels she did the right thing by testifying and has no regrets.
Christine Ford brought these allegations against Kavanaugh and wreaked havoc of the likes some haven’t seen in their lifetimes.
Just look at some of the ridiculousness we have seen in the past couple of weeks.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Pro Kavanaugh women praying <br>Anti Kavanaugh women screaming like lunatics<br>SMH.. <a href="https://t.co/Vn4lUpSgUh">pic.twitter.com/Vn4lUpSgUh</a></p>— £ynne ⚜️{⭐️} ⚜️ (@poconomtn) <a href="https://twitter.com/poconomtn/status/1048594470055206912?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 6, 2018</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
It’s sickening.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/WalkAway?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#WalkAway</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/VoteRed?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#VoteRed</a> <br><br>FACT:<br>Liberals can Red-Pill Moderates & Independents too… <a href="https://t.co/LgQzmyhJr8">pic.twitter.com/LgQzmyhJr8</a></p>— Capt. Bam Bam (@alohabrianb) <a href="https://twitter.com/alohabrianb/status/1048440334395617280?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 6, 2018</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The supplemental hearing took place on September 27, and it provided a fair and professional forum for Christine Ford to share her allegations she made about Judge Kavanaugh.
Grassley conducted an extensive review and investigation of the allegations made by Ford and comments and statements made by others both in news media reports and in messages to other senators that have been given to the Judiciary Committee.
A description of those efforts is provided below:
July 9- President Trump announces Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to become an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States.
July 30-Ford drafts letter to Sen. Feinstein.
July 30 – August 7-Ford consults with Feinstein, who recommended Ford retain Debra Katz and her firm.
August 7-Ford, represented by Debra Katz, takes a polygraph on Katz’s advice.
August 20-Feinstein meets with Kavanaugh, knowing of Ford’s allegations, and that she has retained Katz as counsel. She mentions neither to Kavanaugh during the meeting.
September 4-7-Committee conducts a four day hearing on the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh, including a closed-door session on September 6, which Feinstein did not attend.
September 7- 10-Kavanaugh receives and responds to 1,287 “Questions for the Record” none of which address Ford’s allegations.
September 12-Feinstein transmits Ford’s letter to the FBI. Debra Katz leaves Capitol Hill shortly after the Intercept published an article with vague allegations against Judge Kavanaugh.
September 13- Feinstein tells Grassley of the existence of Ford’s letter after the Committee Executive Business Meeting to hold over the nomination of Kavanaugh to be Associate Justice of the Supreme
Court. Contents of letter leak to media.
September 14-New Yorker publishes substance of Ford’s allegations but does not identify her by name. Mark Judge interviews with Weekly Standard and denies Ford’s allegations.
September 16-Washington Post publishes an article containing Ford’s allegations and her identity. Ford names Kavanaugh and Mark Judge as perpetrators and identifies two other individuals at a party who are unnamed in Washington Post article. Washington Post says that four boys and Ford attended the party. Grassley learns Ford’s identity from Washington Post report. Grassley instructs staff to begin an investigation.
September 17-Ford’s counsel appears on morning shows saying her client wants a public hearing to tell her story. Grassley invites Feinstein’s staff to join the staff interview of Kavanaugh, Ford and other witnesses in a member-level phone call. Feinstein declined to have her staff participate in the routine follow-up calls when new information is provided to the Committee from the FBI for the nominee’s background file. CNN publishes redacted version of the letter originally sent by Ford to Ranking Member.
Committee notices hearing for following Monday, September 24 and invites Ford and Kavanaugh to testify.
Committee investigative staff sent three emails to Ford’s lawyers with no response. Committee investigative staff requests interviews with Ford and Kavanaugh with Republican and Democratic investigators. Kavanaugh submits to interview with Republican staff. Democratic staff refuses to participate in the interview. Kavanaugh asks for a hearing as soon as possible. Ford does not submit to interview.
September 18-Committee investigative staff sent an additional email and placed two additional phone calls to Ford’s lawyers with no response. Committee investigative staff contacts Mark Judge and requests an interview. Committee investigative staff learns the identity of two witnesses identified by Ford but not named in Washington Post article—Patrick J. Smyth and Leland Ingham Keyser—and requests interviews.
Counsel for Mark Judge submits a statement from Mark Judge in which he denies knowledge of party described by Ford and states he “never saw Brett act in the manner described by Dr. Ford.” He further states he has no other information to offer the Committee and does not wish to speak publicly regarding the allegations.
Counsel for Mr. Smyth submits a statement from Mr. Smyth in which he denies any knowledge of the party described by Ford or of the allegations of improper conduct. He also states he “never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh towards women.” He asks that the Committee accept the statement in response to an inquiry it has.
As far as we know, Democratic staff did not reach out to these witnesses.
At 7:57 p.m. Grassley hears from Ford’s attorney for the first time. Ford’s attorney submits a letter to Grassley asking for a delay in the hearing. She does not address Committee’s request for an interview with investigative staff.
Contemporaneously with the release of the letter, Ford’s attorney appears on a cable news show asking for hearing to be delayed.
September 19- Grassley sends a letter to Ford’s attorney that offers Ford the opportunity for a public or private hearing. Grassley reiterates request that Ford agrees to an interview with Committee investigative staff. Ford’s attorneys do not respond to the request.
September 20-Committee staff has a phone call with Ford’s attorneys regarding the conditions under which she would testify before the Committee. Committee staff offers a public hearing, a private hearing, a public staff interview, or a private staff interview.
Feinstein’s staff gives an unredacted copy of Ford’s letter to Grassley’s staff after Grassley requested access and had yet to see an unredacted version of the July 30 letter.
-September 21-Committee staff reiterates request that Ford agrees to an interview with Committee investigative staff. Committee staff offers to fly to California to obtain testimony. Ford’s attorneys do not respond to the request.
Committee staff again reaches out to Ms. Keyser requesting an opportunity to conduct an interview regarding Ford’s allegations. Ford’s attorneys asked on Thursday call with staff that their 10 a.m. deadline for accepting the Judiciary Committee’s invitation to testify at the September 24 hearing be extended. Grassley accommodated their request and extends to Friday at 5 p.m.
Grassley again extends Ford’s invitation to the hearing to 10 p.m. Friday. Grassley responds to Ford’s attorney’s “modest proposal” for an additional day and extends the deadline to accept Ford’s invitation for the hearing by 2:30 p.m. on Saturday. This was the third extension to accommodate Ford’s decision to appear before the Committee.
September 22-Counsel for Ms. Keyser—the fourth witness named by Ford and her “lifelong friend”—submits a statement from Ms. Keyser in which she denies any knowledge of the party described by Ford. She further states she doesn’t know Judge Kavanaugh and doesn’t recall ever being at a party with him.
Ford accepts the invitation to appear before the Committee, but pending further negotiations.
September 23-Ford’s attorneys agree that Ford will appear at a public hearing on Thursday, September 27.
Committee staff sends to Ford’s and Kavanaugh’s lawyers' requests for the submission of relevant evidence in advance of the hearing.
Michael Avenatti tweets that he has a client with allegations and evidence implicating Kavanaugh.
Within minutes, Committee staff reaches out to Mr. Avenatti to request the client’s allegations and evidence. Mr. Avenatti declines to provide any allegations or evidence.
New Yorker publishes an article containing allegations made by Deborah Ramirez that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her during a college party.
Committee staff reaches out to Ms. Ramirez’s attorney within hours of the article’s publication and requests an interview with Ms. Ramirez.
September 24-Committee staff makes three more requests for any statement, testimony, or evidence from Ms. Ramirez. Ms. Ramirez’s attorneys decline to submit such materials.
Two Senate offices refer additional allegations to Committee staff. The first is an anonymous allegation in a letter given to the Chairman by Senator Gardner, posted from Denver. The letter claims that Kavanaugh once forcefully and “sexually” shoved a woman he was dating into a wall at a bar in 1998. The second is an allegation from a man (whose name Senator Whitehouse has demanded we keep from the public) in Rhode Island relayed to Committee staff by Senator Whitehouse’s staff. The Rhode Island man claims that two men named “Brett and Mark” raped a woman on a boat in Newport in 1985, after which the man making the allegation claims he and a friend beat up “Brett and Mark.”
Committee staff requests an interview with Kavanaugh to question him regarding the allegations raised by Ms. Ramirez, Mr. Avenatti, the anonymous Denver letter, and the Rhode Island man.
Committee staff again requests Mr. Avenatti shares his client’s allegations and evidence. Mr. Avenatti declines to provide any allegations or evidence.
Committee staff has the first interview with a man who believes he, not Kavanaugh, had an encounter with Ford in 1982 that is the basis of her complaint. He describes the encounter was consensual. He submitted a written statement earlier in the day.
September 25-Committee investigative staff interview Kavanaugh for approximately 90 minutes regarding Ms. Ramirez’s allegations in the New Yorker and the allegations received by two Senate offices. For the first time, Democratic staff attended the call but expressly declined to ask Kavanaugh any questions. Kavanaugh denies each allegation.
Committee staff makes three more requests for any statement, testimony, or evidence from Ms. Ramirez. Ms. Ramirez’s attorneys decline to submit such materials.
The Committee receives from Senator Harris an anonymous letter, postmarked 9/19 and signed “Jane Doe, Oceanside CA,” alleging that Kavanaugh and others raped the author in the backseat of a car. The letter does not identify the place, date, or the identity of the alleged accomplices.
Committee staff has a second interview with a man who believes he, not Kavanaugh, had an encounter with Ford in the summer of 1982 that is the basis of her allegation. He described his recollection of their interaction in some detail and described the encounter was consensual.
Committee staff interviewed a former Georgetown Prep student who was familiar with “party houses” in the Columbia Country Club area during the time in question and knew Kavanaugh. He spoke in support of Kavanaugh’s good character.
After that interview, Committee staff interviewed that man again along with another person who knew Kavanaugh in the 80s and was familiar with the houses at which Georgetown Prep students partied during the 1980s. Both spoke in favor of Kavanaugh and to his strength of character. Committee staff requested to speak to another person they suggested contacting.
Committee staff received a statement from another classmate of Kavanaugh at Georgetown Prep who provided information about the captions in the yearbooks.
Committee investigative staff also have received additional information, including regarding the characters of Ford and Kavanaugh, have followed up on each one, and will continue to do so.
September 26-Committee staff receives a statement from Julie Swetnick, represented by Mr. Avenatti.
Committee staff responds asking that Ms. Swetnick be made available for an interview with committee staff. Mr. Avenatti returns an email but does not respond to this request.
Committee staff follows up with Mr. Avenatti twice more asking that Ms. Swetnick be made available for an interview. Committee investigative staff questions Kavanaugh a third time this week on the allegations contained in the statement provided by Mr. Avenatti, along with anonymous allegations made by a purported resident of San Diego. Kavanaugh unequivocally denies both allegations. Democratic staff was present but refused to ask questions.
Committee investigators learned of a woman who dated Kavanaugh in 1998, the same time as the anonymous allegation to Sen. Gardner’s office. That girlfriend, Judge Friedrich of the District Court of the District of Columbia, wrote a letter to the Committee, strongly denying she was at the incident in question, and testifying that Kavanaugh never acted that way around that time, or ever.
Committee investigative staff spoke with a friend of Ms. Swetnick about her allegations and any related information. The friend indicated that Ms. Swetnick had never previously mentioned either Kavanaugh or this alleged incident.
Committee staff receives a more in-depth written statement from the man interviewed twice previously who believes he, not Kavanaugh, had an encounter with Ford. He described the encounter was consensual.
Committee investigative staff spoke via phone with another man who believes he, not Kavanaugh, had an encounter with Ford in 1982 that is the basis of her allegation. He explained his recollection of the details of the encounter and described the encounter was consensual.
Committee investigative staff spoke via phone with a former classmate who provided information about the captions in the yearbooks, explaining they were innocuous but sometimes insensitive inside jokes.
Committee investigators contacted four people with knowledge of the individuals making allegations against Kavanaugh. These interviews, all under penalty of felony, yielded information about the credibility of Ms. Swetnick, Kavanaugh’s lack of interactions with Ford in high school, and Ford’s credibility.
Committee investigative staff interview a friend of Kavanaugh who attests to his character. Committee investigative staff interview an individual that had a dozen interactions with Ms. Swetnick over a period of four years, who has a negative view of Ms. Swetnick.
Senate investigators speak to a man with personal knowledge of Ford, says Ford assisted her friend in passing a polygraph exam.
September 27-Committee conducts hearing to solicit testimony from Ford and Kavanaugh regarding Ford’s allegations.
Committee receives a letter from attorneys for Elizabeth Rasor, who claims to be the former girlfriend of Mark Judge. Rasor states that the New Yorker article accurately stated her recollections.
Committee receives an anonymous letter claiming responsibility for the incident with Ford.
Committee investigative staff again interviewed a friend of Kavanaugh who attests to his character.
September 28-Committee investigative staff interview a friend of Ramirez and determine she has no first-hand knowledge of the misconduct alleged.
Committee investigative staff interview an ex-boyfriend of Swetnick.
Committee investigative staff receives a message from Senator Daines regarding a text from a woman who attended Yale with Kavanaugh and resided in the same dormitory.
Committee investigative staff receives an anonymous message claiming the allegations that Kavanaugh pushed a woman against a wall in 1998 were false.
Committee investigative staff attempts to contact a woman who gave no last name and who called Grassley’s office and claimed that she has important information related to Kavanaugh.
Senator Blumenthal refers to the Committee several screenshots of text message conversation regarding the Ramirez allegation.
Senate requests that the White House order the FBI to investigate all “current credible allegations” against Judge Kavanaugh.
Senate investigators speak again to a man with personal knowledge of Ford, says Ford assisted her friend in passing a polygraph exam.
September 29- Committee staff investigates email from a former Yale student related to Ramirez’s allegations.
Committee staff investigates email from another former Yale student regarding Ramirez’s allegation. He identified a classmate of Kavanaugh’s at Yale who was known for exposing himself at parties.
Committee referred for criminal investigation a Rhode Island man’s apparent false statements alleging misconduct by Kavanaugh.
September 30-Committee distributes memorandum from Rachel Mitchell outlining her views on the Ford allegations.
October 1- Committee staff investigates email from an individual with knowledge about Georgetown Prep academics and uniforms related to allegations by Ramirez and Swetnick.
Committee staff investigates email from an attorney for an individual who was a classmate at Georgetown Prep claiming to have information relating to Renate.
Committee staff investigates email from character witness regarding Ramirez.
Committee staff speaks with two employees at a company where Swetnick worked, regarding her activities and credibility.
Committee staff speaks with an attorney for an ex-boyfriend of Swetnick.
Committee staff spoke with an individual that went to Yale and shared information that cast doubt on Ramirez’s story.
October 2, 2018-Committee staff receives statement containing reports from multiple classmates of Ford regarding her character in high school.
Committee staff receives a letter from a classmate of Kavanaugh’s in high school discussing his character as it relates to the Ford and Swetnick allegations.
Committee staff speaks with a college classmate of Ramirez and who knew Kavanaugh while he was in law school regarding Kavanaugh’s character.
Committee staff reached out to associates of Ford and spoke with one of them.
Committee staff receives a statement from Ford’s ex-boyfriend stating that she had previously coached someone on a polygraph, contradicting her testimony, and had no claustrophobia or flying issues in the 1990s.
Committee staff talked to three individuals that knew Swetnick when she was in junior high and some years after and all three shared negative views about her character.
Committee staff spoke with an individual that met Swetnick at a business meeting.
Committee staff receives a statement from Swetnick‘s ex-boyfriend regarding her character.
October 3, 2018-Committee staff talked to a Holton Arms mother regarding her knowledge of, and interaction with Ford, and the Blasey family.
Committee staff talked to an attendee of the July 1st event from Judge Kavanaugh’s calendar regarding that event, devil’s triangle, FFFFFFF, and other topics.
Committee staff talked to the General Manager of the Columbia Country Club regarding its records.
Committee staff talked to the attorney for a Georgetown Prep student who submitted a statement regarding Kavanaugh’s character.
Committee staff again reached out to two associates of Ford, who were unwilling to provide information.
Committee staff contacted two classmates of Kavanaugh
Georgetown Prep, including one who may have interacted with Ford while in high school.
Committee staff received a signed statement from an associate of Swetnick.
Committee staff again spoke with a college associate of Ford.
The committee received a statement from Yale classmate of Kavanaugh and Deborah Ramirez
The committee again received and reviewed correspondence from Kerry Berchem; conducted a phone interview with Kerry Berchem
October 4, 2018- Committee staff receives five statements: three from Judge Kavanaugh’s Georgetown Prep classmates regarding the meaning of various yearbook entries, one from Swetnick’s ex-boyfriend regarding her character, and one from college students who learned of the drinking game Devil’s Triangle from Kavanaugh and his friends.
Committee staff again spoke with an individual who has multiple social connections to Ford’s family.
Committee staff spoke with two Georgetown Prep classmates of Kavanaugh.
Committee staff spoke with two UNC-Chapel Hill classmates of Ford.
Committee staff spoke with two Yale classmates of Kavanaugh and Ramirez, and the attorney for another Yale classmate of Ramirez.
October 5, 2018-Committee staff spoke to an individual, for the third time, who has multiple social connections to Ford’s family.
Committee staff spoke to an attorney for a Yale classmate of Ramirez and Kavanaugh for the second time.
Committee staff received a statement from a UNC classmate of Ford.
A Yale classmate of Ramirez notified the Committee that he is unwilling to be interviewed.
We asked the witnesses to submit to interviews. But we can’t force them to interview without a subpoena. Witnesses provided categorical, unequivocal statements denying any memory of events matching Ford’s allegations. Lying in those statements is punishable under the same federal law as lying in an interview.
The only remaining option would be to subpoena the witnesses. But that process takes a long time. Given that the witnesses’ statements were categorical, an interview or deposition is unlikely to reveal any new information and therefore not worth the substantial cost and time needed to obtain and enforce the subpoenas. Of note, the Democrats have not joined our requests for witness interviews.
End of the timeline.
The Republicans did everything they could possibly do with the information given to them. If Ford is telling the truth then she would want the truth to come out. She would not stop at just telling her story to the Committee. Perhaps she fears that if too much information gets out people will see her story for what it is?
Will we ever be able to overcome this division? I don’t believe we will.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Anti-Kavanaugh protesters are now being arrested on the steps of the U.S. Capitol after breaching barriers. <a href="https://t.co/hTLqBGLPyt">pic.twitter.com/hTLqBGLPyt</a></p>— Kyle Morris (@RealKyleMorris) <a href="https://twitter.com/RealKyleMorris/status/1048625537109950464?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 6, 2018</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Related Sources:
https://abc7news.com/amp/politics/ford-wont-pursue-sexual-misconduct-allegations-against-kavanaugh-further/4427136/; https://www.scribd.com/document/390251073/Summary-of-Judiciary-Committee-Investigation-of-Allegations-final#from_embed
<b>By: Lexy </b>
<b><i>On Twitter? Follow me:</i></b>
<a href="https://www.twitter.com/PoliticallyRYT">@PoliticallyRYT</a>
<strong><span style="color:red;">Have Information? Message me!</span></strong>
Awesome article Lexy. Ford, Katz, and the DNC are reprobates.
Ford is a sad lonely woman. She and her team of attorneys should be investigated.
Contact the FBI and demand an investigation into the Democrats and ford and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law! Kavanaugh was confirmed, now it’s our turn to Demand an FBI INVESTIGATION, we want justice!
>>38823 you fucking moron, anybody with eyes can see that it's not a picture of her.
Cops should of dragged the fugly commies by their hair, their big hairy retros.
the left may think they have a grudge to fight for but in reality they have exposed the nature of their true behavior and animus that shows the true color of democrats. Not really the representatives of the poor and afflicted but rather the feckless hungry to dictate the actions they don't agree with. Do as a I say and not as I do. Silent majority no more is bringing with it a red tsunami.
WWG1WGA
Well isn’t that just a shock. Not! Looks like she will disappear much like all the other women the Democrats hired to acccuse our President and Judge Roy Moore. I’m so happy that truth won out in this case. Love the article.