Two men tell Senate that they, not Kavanaugh, assaulted Ford

Kavanaugh smeared, but two men coming forward actually find the real (narrative) killer  "Is the nightmarish miasma of increasingly flimsy charges against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh about to come to an end?  Sure looks like it, as two men step forward and say they were the ones who assaulted the woman who charges Kavanaugh with the assault 37 years ago.  It's as if O.J. Simpson really did find "the real killer."

"According to USA Today:

WASHINGTON – The Senate Judiciary Committee has questioned two men who say they, not Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, had the disputed encounter with Christine Blasey Ford at a 1982 house party that led to sexual assault allegations. 

The revelation was included in a late-night news release by Sen. Chuck Grassley, the top Republican on the committee.  The release includes a day-by-day view of the committee's investigative work over the last two weeks since allegations surfaced targeting Kavanaugh.

"Oh, my.  You wouldn't expect the real attackers to come forward just to keep Kavanaugh from having to bear an improbable accusation of sexual predation and having to defend himself alone.  How often does anyone see someone take a bullet based on his own actions to at least ensure that someone innocent doesn't take it?  They would have had nothing to gain from this, yet they came forward, signaling that they eventually grew up.  Incredibly, it has happened.

"Something like this has potential to end the whole nightmare for Kavanaugh." . . .

NY Post

"Two men have come forward to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to claim that they are the ones who actually assaulted Christine Blasey Ford during a house party in 1982 — and not Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

"Republicans on the committee released a timeline of events late Wednesday, which included details about their interactions with the two men who admitted to the attacks.

"On Monday, the timeline recounts GOP staff members interviewing “a man who believes he, not Judge Kavanaugh, had the encounter with Dr. Ford in 1982.”

"The “encounter” refers to an episode in which Ford claims that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in a bedroom at a Maryland house party.

"They had a follow-up interview with that man, and he provided more detail about the assault.

"Then on Wednesday, the committee staff said they spoke with a second man who said he assaulted Ford in 1982.

"The committee did not release any more details about the men, or why both were coming forward with the claims." . . .

Juanita Broaddrick Shows Up At Kavanaugh Hearing To Look ‘Hypocrite Democrats’ In Eye

Daily Caller  "Juanita Broaddrick, a woman who has accused Bill Clinton of rape, showed up outside the Senate calling Democrats “hypocrites” for not believing her allegations.

"Broaddrick told the Daily Caller in an interview that she showed up at the Senate to “look hypocrites Schumer, Durbin and Feinstein in the eye and ask for an apology.”

"Broaddrick calls the hearing today a “double standard.”

“ 'I have twenty times more evidence for my rape by Bill Clinton than Dr. Ford has against Kavanaugh,” Broaddrick says, “Democrats turned their backs on me. They refused to read my testimony or acknowledge me in 1999 when I went public with my story. Democrats turned their backs on me.”

"Broaddrick said that the mantra the ‘All women deserve to be believed” does not apply to her.

“ 'All women are to be believed if they’re not conservatives and as long as the assault was not done by Democrats.”

"Broaddrick brought up the domestic abuse allegations against DNC Co-Chair Keith Ellison: “Ellison is leading the Democratic party right now. He should be kicked out of office. Karen Monahan has 10 times the evidence that Dr. Ford does. Where is her hearing?” . . .

         Ellison Barber‏Verified account 

Juanita Broaddrick is outside of Dirksen Senate building. Broaddrick says she does not believe Dr Ford, and Democrats supporting her now are “hypocrites” because they didn’t support her.

How did Dr. Ford claim ignorance that she was taking a polygraph?

If these requirements by the Commonwealth are typical, How can Dr. Ford say she did not know what was going on? TD

State of Virginia regulations for polygraph examiners 
Part V: Standards for Practice and Conduct

. . . 18 VAC 120-30-200. Polygraph examination procedures. 
A. Each licensed polygraph examiner and registered polygraph examiner intern must post, in a conspicuous place for the examinee, his license or registration, or a legible copy of his license or registration to practice in Virginia.

 B. The examiner shall provide the examinee with a written explanation of the provisions of 18VAC120-30-200, 18VAC120-30-210 and 18VAC120-30-220 at the beginning of each polygraph examination. 

C. The examinee may request a recording of the polygraph examination being administered. Each examiner shall maintain recording equipment and recording media adequate for such recording. The examiner shall safeguard all examination recordings with the records he is required to keep pursuant to 18VAC120-30-230. All recordings shall be made available to the department, the examinee or the examinee's attorney upon request. The examiner may charge the examinee a fee not to exceed $35 only if the examinee requests and receives a copy of an examination. 

D. The examinee shall be entitled to a copy of all portions of any written report pertaining to his examination which is prepared by the examiner and provided to any person or organization. The examinee shall make his request in writing to the examiner. The examiner shall comply within 10 business days of providing the written report to any person or organization or receiving the examinee's written request, whichever occurs later. The examiner may collect not more than $1.00 per page from the examinee for any copy provided. 

E. The provisions of subsections B, C, and D of this section shall not be applicable to any examination conducted by or on behalf of the Commonwealth or any of its political subdivisions when the examination is for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or the enforcement of penal laws. However, examiners administering examinations as described in this section shall comply with subsection B of this section through a verbal explanation of the provisions of 18VAC120-30-210 and 18VAC120-30-220.

18 VAC 120-30-210. Examination pretest procedure. 
A. Prior to administering any polygraph test, the examiner shall inform the prospective examinee of all the issues to be covered during the polygraph examination and of all the items to be reported by the examiner to any other person. 
B. The examiner shall obtain written permission from the prospective examinee to administer the examination after fulfilling the requirements of 18VAC120-30-200, and before proceeding further with the administration of the examination. Historical Notes Derived from VR190-03-1 § 5.2, eff.

11TH HOUR SHOCK! Two Say Kavanaugh May Have Been Mistaken For Them

Socio-Political Journal  "As an extraordinary series of uncorroborated, lurid last-minute allegations threatens to derail his confirmation to the Supreme Court, nominee Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Ford, the California professor accusing him of sexually assaulting her more than three decades ago, are set to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday morning.
"The proceedings may be upended by late-breaking developments: In a statement released Wednesday evening, Judiciary Committee Republicans revealed that on Monday, they conducted their "first interview with a man who believes he, not Judge Kavanaugh, had the encounter with Dr. Ford in 1982 that is the basis of his [sic] complaint." They conducted a second interview the next day. 
"On Wednesday, Republicans said in the statement, they received a "more in-depth written statement from the man interviewed twice previously who believes he, not Judge Kavanuagh, had the encounter in question with Dr. Ford." GOP investigators also spoke on the phone with another man making a similar claim.
"Ford has previously said there is "zero chance" she would have confused Kavanaugh for anyone else.
"In response, an aide to Democrats on the Judiciary Committee reportedly unloaded on Senate Republicans: "Republicans are flailing," the aide said, according to NBC News. "They are desperately trying to muddy the waters. ... Twelve hours before the hearing they suggest two anonymous men claimed to have assaulted her. Democrats were never informed of these assertions in interviews, in violation of Senate rules."
"The aide, before again calling for an FBI probe into Ford's accusations, added, "This is shameful and the height of irresponsibility."
"But Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, shot back on Twitter late Wednesday, writing, "Some might find it exceedingly difficult to imagine Judiciary Committee Democrats expressing this complaint with straight faces.' " . . .

Surviving Our 'Survivors'; Are they "hired guns"?

David Solway  "According to the feminist mantra, a veritable epidemic of male violence against women is sweeping the country.  Women in every walk of life are apparently prey to a wave of male sexual harassment, assault, and rape; they are victims of a nefarious consortium called "the patriarchy," which has been oppressing women in the home, the workplace, and the professions from time immemorial.  Women who bring forth allegations of male sexual misconduct, whether proven or not and no matter how frivolous or innocuous, are now classified as "survivors" who must be believed and afforded remedial counseling and legal recourse.  Accused men are regarded as bearers of a pathology known as "toxic masculinity" and must be prosecuted as undoubted perpetrators.

"I have observed and recorded innumerable examples of the phenomenon.  The litany of dodgy #MeToo grievances is common knowledge – the preposterous allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is only the most currently prominent such episode – and even women who have not entered the hashtag world are primed and provoked to join the vendetta.  Four more such instances have just now come to my attention, a grouping that, in effect, constitutes a full data set.

"Marcus Knight, a student at Saddleback College in the California Community College system, who suffers from dysphasia, autism, and cerebral palsy and is fitted with a drainage shunt to relieve pressure on the brain, has been the target of two Title IX complaints.  His transgression?  Asking for a fist bump and a selfie with a presumably friendly co-ed.  Knight was not allowed to defend himself against the allegations.  The "survivor" of a fist bump and a selfie must be protected at all costs." . . .

Patricia McCarthy: These women are hired guns!  . . . "We know from Brian Fallon, a Hillary Clinton operative, that the left has planned to destroy any person Trump nominates to the Court.  One has to wonder what the left's strategy would be had he nominated Amy Coney Barrett.  Perhaps leftists would have reported that she had worked her way through college as a stripper or a prostitute.  One thing is certain: they would have pulled out every sleazy trick in their playbook to see that she was not confirmed, either.

"This is who the Democrats are these days.  They will go to any lengths, no matter how seedy or illegal or fabricated, to ruin the people they fear.  Whom do they fear?  Good, honest men like Brett Kavanaugh.  People they cannot manipulate, bribe, or threaten to do their bidding. 

"Who represents Christine Blasey Ford?  Debra Katz, a far-left socialist and HRC fundraiser whose firm once represented Julie Swetnick, the most recent and most ridiculous accuser.  Swetnick is the one who, after she was in college, continued to attend high school parties where, she claims, boys drugged girls and then lined up to "train rape" them.  She went to such parties at least ten times but told no one, reported nothing, even though she must have been the only adult present.  That in itself pretty much proves that this planned and plotted smear is all part of an overall strategy to keep anyone Trump nominates from being confirmed." . . .

Senator Hirono Didn’t Always Tell Men to ‘Shut Up’ and Believe Accusers

John Fund at National Review

Hirono and Gillibrand

"When it mattered in her own backyard, with a male Democratic senator, she turned a blind eye to sexual abuse."

"My, how times have changed. My, how liberals have changed.

"Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, opened the 1991 Anita Hill hearings by declaring that Judge Clarence Thomas must “be given the benefit of the doubt.”

"In the end, eleven Democratic senators voted to confirm Thomas. That’s not going to happen with Brett Kavanaugh. Senator Mazie Hirono of Hawaii threatens to become the new model of Senate inquisitor. Rather than ask questions of both parties, she has made clear that her mind is already made up: She condemns Judge Kavanaugh and supports Christine Ford.

"Hirono made some truly remarkable statements last week. “Not only do women like Dr. Ford, who bravely comes forward, need to be heard, but they need to be believed,” she insisted. She added, “I just want to say to the men in this country: Just shut up and step up. Do the right thing for a change.”

"When the Wall Street Journal editorial page pointed out that her statements suggest that the “new American standard of due process will be the presumption of guilt,” she went further. Appearing on CNN on Sunday, Hirono said that Kavanaugh’s basic integrity had been undermined, in her eyes, during his confirmation hearings:" . . .

All that has followed we can thank Democrats for, including these :

‘I hope you get raped’: Check out these messages left with Sen. Chuck Grassley’s staffers  You angry people out there, let only the left be guilty of vile such as this!  "Liberals" have set a really low bar - the Maxine Waters standard - for class and we should beat it easily if we just will. TD
"We’re on Twitter all day, so we know how ugly things can get. But on Wednesday evening, the Washington Examiner’s Philip Wegmann posted some of the comments that have been left for Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley’s staffers recently."
Creepy porn lawyer and creepy comedienne among featured speakers

LIVE: Kavanaugh, Ford Testify in Front of Senate Judiciary Committee

Branco Cartoon – Manifest Destiny  Gotta love those Brancotoons.

Legal Insurrection

LIVE: Kavanaugh, Ford Testify in Front of Senate Judiciary Committee
"At 10:00AM ET, Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and his accuser Christine Blasey Ford will 

testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

"Ford has accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault back in high school.

"I will update this thread as it goes. You can follow along and watch a livestream." . . .

What They Will Say:  "Kavanaugh’s and Ford’s prepared remarks came out yesterday. Kavanaugh denied the allegations once again and insisted he will not resign over a last-minute character assassination.

"Ford wrote that she came to the hearing because it is her “civic duty” to tell everyone what happened to her. She claims that Kavanaugh “locked her in a room, held her down and tried to remove her clothes at a party when they were both in high school.”

Questioners

"Arizona sex crimes prosecutor will question Kavanaugh and Ford instead of the Republicans. She has worked for the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office for 26 years.

"The Democrats on the panel will question Kavanaugh and Ford."

Apparently, Mazie Hirono will allow Judge Kavanaugh to speak just this once

Comment to this post: 

 I think that it needs to be reiterated what a vicious ordeal this is, and what a waste of time. It is being done to assuage three senators—Flake, Murkowski and Collins. All the Democrats have announced their opposition. Despite their fear of saying so out loud, all of the other Republicans are on board. This is an expensive, ego-massage for three senators. None of these accusations have any evidence to back them up. How much is it costing to get Ford to this hearing? Whose paying for it? Who is paying for her lawyers? How much money have Democratic senators fundraised off of this? The scandal here is not anything that Kavanaugh might have done, but the insistence of the Democrats on destruction, and the acquiescence of the Republican leadership–and three Vichy senators–who let them do it.

Another comment with this post:

 I read the accuser’s testimony, as released by her law firm in a 9-page document.
Much inconsistent material, therein. Try this on, for transparent contradiction:
On page 2, she states, as she begins relating her account of the alleged attack, “One evening that summer.” “One evening?” Was this May? June? July? August?
Also on page 2, she claims that the details of the alleged event have been “seared” into her memory, yet, in the same paragraph, previously, she explains that she “truly wish[es]” she could remember details about how she got to the party, who hosted the party, etc. Sounds to me as though she had been drinking, heavily. And, it sounds as though she’s establishing a pre-emptive rationale to rebut obvious scrutiny of why she can’t recall basic details of that night.
Perhaps the most nauseating and manifestly devious excerpt:
“My hope was that providing the [letter] confidentially owuld be sufficient to allow the Senate to consider Mr. Kavanaugh’s serious misconduct without having to make myself, my family or anyone’s family vulnerable to the personal attacks and invasions of privacy we have faced since my name became public.”
Translation — “My hope was that my anonymous accusation, devoid of a scintilla of evidentiary supports, would be sufficient to derail Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination, without me having to actually testify under oath, in support of the allegations.”
Page 4 – she writes that “everything changed in July 2018,” when the press reported Kavanaugh as a potential SCOTUS nominee. But, Kavanaugh had been mentioned as a potential SCOTUS nominee as far back as 2012.
This is embarrassing, venemous and transparent slander. The Senate should not be entertaining this nonsense, which would never hold up in a civil or criminal court, tardy and as devoid of evidentiary supports as it is.

Michael Avenatti denies he got pranked by 4Chan

CBS News  "Michael Avenatti denied rumors that he had been tricked by 4Chan users into representing a fictional woman with allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Avenatti locked his Twitter account earlier on Tuesday, making it impossible to retweet any of his tweets.

"Avenatti, who is considering a presidential bid in 2020, has said in recent days that he is representing a woman with credible claims of sexual assault against Kavanaugh, who faces allegations of sexual misconduct from two other women, both of which he has vehemently denied.   

"A 4Chan user posted on Tuesday that his girlfriend had called Avenatti on a burner phone and claimed to be a woman who had been assaulted by Kavanaugh in high school. He claimed that he and his girlfriend also pretended to be another person who could confirm the fictional woman's story. 4Chan is an internet message board which has been linked to the alt-right.

"Avenatti told CBS News' Nancy Cordes on Tuesday that the post was false.

" 'There's nothing wrong! I had to go online to look, and I read this post, and I'm laughing. None of that happened. It's a complete fabrication. There's zero truth to it. When I say zero truth, I mean zero truth. Not a single thing in that is true," he said. Avenatti also said that his client was not having second thoughts about coming forward, saying that she is "remaining strong."

"Avenatti tweeted on Sept. 23 that he and his client "will be demanding the opportunity to present testimony to the committee and will likewise be demanding that Judge and others be subpoenaed to testify. The nomination must be withdrawn.' " . . .

Looks BAD! After spending DAYS bragging about Kavanaugh GOTCHA, Michael Avenatti locks his Twitter account  "Our favorite ‘creepy porn lawyer’ has spent days telling us how much trouble everyone will be in when his client finally comes forward because this is SO BIG. Like HUGE. Basta and stuff. And yet here we are, still waiting for her to come forward. What was his last promise, 48 hours? 36 hours?

"We’d go check but since he locked his Twitter account we can’t … 

Democrats believe Ramirez but stiff-arm Avenatti

"Creepy Porn Star Lawyer Michael Avenatti Responds to President Trump With Crude Insult"  . . . "Speaking about Avenatti’s silver spoon insult to Trump, Fox News Channel host Harris Faulkner observed Avenatti’s comments were not about his client, but about putting the spotlight on himself." . . .

Ann Coulter: No More Mr. White Guy

Big Government

In the history of the world, there has never been a more pacific, less rapey creature than the white male of Western European descent.
I realize it gives The New York Times’ editorial board (recent acquisition: Sarah Jeong) warm feelings every time someone throws in the word “white” as an intensifier, denoting extra hatefulness, but really, guys, it’s getting old.
Can we please, for the love of God, drop the painfully trite, mind-numbing cliche about “white men,” as if somehow their whiteness makes evil even eviler? Ann Coulter

 “ 'They know the optics of 11 white men questioning Dr. Ford … will be so harmful and so damaging to the GOP.” — Areva Martin, CNN legal analyst." . . .
. . . 

As the Supreme Court confirmation hearing resumes this week for Judge Brett Kavanaugh, it’s clear that the Republicans are simply too white to get the job done. I suggest the Republicans sign up some outside help, the way baseball teams make late-season acquisitions of pitchers and designated hitters for the playoffs.

Some suggestions (note: not all of the following individuals are Republicans, but none has any partisan profile that I am aware of):

   1. The Rev. Al Sharpton (Tawana Brawley affair demonstrates that he believes women).   2. Bill Cosby (extensive, up-close experience with victims of sexual assault, albeit from a rapist’s, rather than a “rapee’s” perspective).   3. Keith Ellison (likely good rapport with committee Democrats; has own transportation to Capitol Building).   4. Matias Reyes (would undoubtedly throw himself into committee’s work as pleasant change of pace from prison).   5. Sorry, I don’t remember the gentleman’s name, but that guy who kidnapped and raped the Columbia student, poured bleach on her and Krazy-Glued her lips shut. (This one is sort of a “wild card,” I admit; he could be absolutely great, or, judging by his history of poor impulse control, he could be too emotionally unstable to handle the committee’s important work; definitely a Person of Color, though; that I’m sure about.)   6. Alton Maddox, attorney for black youth hired by Jewish landlord to slash a model’s face because she refused to date him. Maddox pioneered novel “she’s a manipulative slut who had it coming” defense. (Close relationship with the Rev. Sharpton a definite plus.)   7. Lakireddy Bali Reddy, entrepreneurial Indian immigrant with strong experience with underage rape victims, having brought little girls to the U.S. purchased from their poverty-stricken parents in India as his private sex slaves. (His presence may bring Asha Rangappa on board.)

"Seriously, if feminists want to make the point that only female senators have any business conducting these hearings, they have a logical point, albeit an idiotic one.

"Of course, the last time feminists bet big on women being certain allies in the fight against misogyny, they were the women of the O.J. jury." . . .

https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/09/26/ann-coulter-more-mr-white-guy/

Kavanaugh's Opening Testimony For Thursday's Hearing Has Been Released -- Here's What He'll Say

 Katie Pavlich "The Senate Judiciary Committee has released the opening statement Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh will deliver Thursday morning as part of his testimony on Capitol Hill. In his remarks, Kavanaugh again fully denies all accusations of sexual misconduct raised against him. 

"Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Members of the Committee: Eleven days ago, Dr. Ford publicly accused me of committing a serious wrong more than 36 years ago when we were both in high school. I denied the allegation immediately, unequivocally, and categorically," Kavanaugh says. "The next day, I told this Committee that I wanted to testify as soon as possible, under oath, to clear my name. Over the past few days, other false and uncorroborated accusations have been aired. There has been a frenzy to come up with something—anything, no matter how far-fetched or odious —that will block a vote on my nomination. These are last-minute smears, pure and simple." "They debase our public discourse. And the consequences extend beyond any one nomination. Such grotesque and obvious character assassination—if allowed to succeed—will dissuade competent and good people of all political persuasions from serving our country," he continues. " . . .

 Continue reading...

Decency dies in the Senate

W. Michael Caswell

"For those of us closely following the Judge Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, I think I can reliably describe us as outraged and saddened at the lengths to which the Democrats are willing to go to deny Kavanaugh a seat on the Supreme Court.

"Until a week ago, the left had been unable to block Judge Kavanaugh's elevation to the highest court due to his sterling record of judicial temperament and the quality of prodigious rulings in his current role as Circuit Court judge for the D.C. Court of Appeals.  It's important to note that several of his rulings have been upheld by the Supreme Court – unlike the oft overturned Sonia Sotomayor.

"So, while not totally unexpected, it's still a bit shocking how the left is ruthlessly shoving aside all semblance of fairness, especially the time-honored principle of innocent until proven guilty.  In their manic, ends-justifies-the-means destruction of Judge Kavanaugh, the Democrats are crossing a line that shreds a universal principle of justice, replaced by mob rule and guilt by accusation.  Not one, not two, not three, but four people have now come forward to reject the accuser's claims that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Christine Blasey Ford.  As of this moment, she has provided not one shred of evidence to support her allegations. 

. . . 

"In the bigger picture, the coordinated character assassination of Brett Kavanaugh affects us all, and it's not an understatement to say this bright line of simple fairness, once crossed, will be ill redrawn, nor should its deep wounds be trivialized.  And it's not the destruction of just one man, who is by all accounts completely innocent of the charges against him.  It will be a triumph of the feral street – the raging mob, lusting for blood and accepting nothing less than the head of its hated enemy.  Perhaps we are spiraling toward our home-grown version of the Reign of Terror, where youthful impropriety, a careless or indiscreet word, or even an earnest expression of feeling to those we think we can trust later metastasizes by design into red meat for a vengeful and bloodthirsty mob demanding nothing less than annihilation to satisfy its ever morphing outrage. " . . .

grrrgraphics.com

Don't waver, Republicans!

Republican Lisa Murkowski Unsure if She Will Support Brett Kavanaugh After Bogus Sexual Assault Allegations  "Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a key swing vote for Republicans, said she wants to be fair about the allegations against U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
"A pro-abortion Republican, Murkowski has not yet decided how she will vote on the judge’s confirmation.
“We are now in a place where it’s not about whether or not Judge Kavanaugh is qualified,” Murkowski told the New York Times this week. “It is about whether or not a woman who has been a victim at some point in her life is to be believed.”
"She and fellow pro-abortion Republican Sen. Susan Collins are being heavily lobbied by the abortion industry to oppose Kavanaugh. Republicans hold a slim, two-member majority in the Senate, so every vote is important. Neither have announced their decision on whether to support his confirmation, but both did vote to confirm President Donald Trump’s first nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch." . . .

Chairman Grassley Schedules Committee Vote Friday Morning For SCOTUS Nominee….   . . . "With Ms. Ford’s attendance still in question, Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley is using regular order to schedule a judiciary committee vote on Friday morning.  The committee vote is not mandatory, but generally following procedures.  This would set up a full Senate vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh on Monday or Tuesday of next week.

(Via Politico) […]  Senate Republicans hired a female attorney to use as a questioner of Ford at Thursday’s high-stakes hearing on a sexual assault allegation against Kavanaugh but are declining to release her name.Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) told POLITICO on Tuesday that “we aren’t announcing the name for her safety.”

Asked if Republicans have received any indication of threats to the attorney they’re preparing to use, Grassley said: “I don’t know, but I guess we’re just being cautious.”  (more)

Via Doug Ross Journal