Senate Judiciary Committee to vote on Kavanaugh confirmation on Friday morning?


The Senate Judiciary Committee announced Tuesday that it had rescheduled a vote on Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination for Friday morning.

The vote is scheduled to take place at 9:30 a.m. ET one day after Kavanaugh and sex assault accuser Christine Blasey Ford are due to testify before lawmakers. Ford has claimed that Kavanaugh tried removing her clothes during a party when they were in high school. Kavanaugh denies her accusation.

A successful vote Friday is not necessary to advance Kavanaugh’s nomination to the full Senate. Current Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas received no recommendation from the Judiciary Committee in 1991, but was still confirmed by the Senate. Conversely, Robert Bork received an unfavorable recognition from the committee in 1987, though his nomination was rejected by the full Senate.

The allegations by Ford, who went public with her claims Sept. 16, have caused cracks in what appeared to be a smooth path to confirmation for Kavanaugh. Multiple Republican senators have told Fox News that they want to hear Ford’s testimony before deciding which way to vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination.

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, a key undecided Republican, told reporters she will be “glued to the television” during Thursday’s hearing.

However, GOP lawmakers sounded more bullish about Kavanaugh’s chances on Tuesday, with some discussing keeping the Senate in session this weekend so that they can begin the process of confirming Kavanaugh right away.

“I go into the hearings with very positive feelings about him, and I hope Thursday goes well,” Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., told reporters.

The debate took another twist Sunday night when the New Yorker magazine published claims by Deborah Ramirez, a Yale classmate of Kavanaugh who says he exposed himself to her while drunk at a college party in the 1980s. Kavanaugh has denied that allegation as well.

Fox News has learned that Judiciary Committee staffers interviewed Kavanaugh by phone about the Ramirez allegations on Tuesday. A source familiar with the call told Fox News that Republican staffers led the interview, while Democratic aides listened without asking any questions.

This entry was posted in Government, Politics, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

49 Responses to Senate Judiciary Committee to vote on Kavanaugh confirmation on Friday morning?

  1. lovely says:

    Will wonders never cease?

    Liked by 3 people

  2. stella says:

    Liked by 4 people

  3. stella says:

    Liked by 3 people

    • jeans2nd says:

      Grassley hopes his colleagues agree. How droll. Of course they will not agree. That is not why Grassley’s colleagues are there.
      These type people have never ever been in my life. Ever. We never even knew about these type people and this type behavior. And now the entire country cannot escape this. May Our Lord have mercy.

      Liked by 1 person

    • michellc says:

      Yeah right, I heard some democrat say they had a mercenary coming in to question her.

      Republicans screwed this up big time, they should have already held the vote and not let this crap go on.

      Liked by 2 people

  4. stella says:

    Liked by 2 people

  5. stella says:

    Liked by 2 people

  6. hocuspocus13 says:

    Picture surfaces of Ford with Soros

    Rameriz Senior Fellow of one of Soros organizations

    Interesting…don’t you think?

    …and PS

    Mr Avanatti came forward today with the woman who has claimed “gang rape” and quaaludes

    Liked by 4 people

    • czarowniczy says:

      Yup, a well-timed 3rd accuser. She claims Kavanaugh MAY HAVE drugged her with Ludes and MAY HAVE been a part in a rape gang. Neato, well timed – keep up the drumbeat – and she can’t be sued for slander or libel as she didn’t accuse her directly but said he might have been part of a known rape gang. The Rat tort lawyers are on their toes on this one, more sizzle without the promise of steak.
      Kavanaugh’s made his personal calendars from the dates in question available (see, save EVERYTHING) and they show he was grounded or nowhere near where she was assaulted. Doesn’t matter though, it keeps up the drumbeat.

      Liked by 2 people

  7. lovely says:


    Liked by 2 people

  8. lovely says:

    Set aside your outrage and read this with the dispassionate eyes of the law.

    Julie Swetnick does not accuse Kavanaugh of raping her. It is pretty sharply written and obviously a hit job. Parsed words.

    I do not believe a single word that Julie Swetnick has sworn to other than undeniable facts such as she was alive in 1982 and so was Kavanaugh.

    So this Julie Swetnick has memories of multiple parties where gang rapes occurred Kavanaugh and Judge dutifully standing in line with their ticket (drunken beyond words) yet standing in line for their turn to rape a young woman. And yet Julie Swetnick continued to go to those parties? She never tried to stop it? She never thought, hmmmm likely another rape train party I’ll stay home and watch Happy Days.

    This is pure bullshit.

    Julie Swetnick is delusional (not about her belief that Kavanaugh that was part of a rape gang I don’t believe for a nanosecond that she believes that accusation) but in her belief that she is fighting for the betterment of the United States by trying to stop Kavanaugh from becoming a SCOTUS Justice. Sick vile people.

    The democrats are unmasked as they have never been before, there is no way they can dial this back. They are guilty of defamation pure and simple. I hope each and everyone of them is destroyed they deserve nothing less than being thrown in prison for the rest of their lives.

    Wouldn’t it be sweet if the Kavanaugh calendar was a ploy 😎.

    Liked by 1 person

    • lovely says:

      This is the portion of the letter I meant to post.

      Carefully crafted words to make it look like Julie Swetnick is accusing Kavanaugh of raping her.

      I hope Flake chokes on his own tongue.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Lucille says:

        Excuse my ignorance of the law, but how does a person swear “under penalty of perjury” via a piece of paper and not in front of an official who swears her in? What is sworn in front of her lawyer would seem to me to be worthless. I don’t see a notary or any other official stamp indicating who this declaration was sworn to.

        Liked by 2 people

        • lovely says:

          Sworn affidavit made under oath or affirmation of a person authorized to make a legal document.

          Now is it really a sworn affidavit? It has been presented to the Senate Judiciary Committee so if it is not in fact what it is represented as I imagine that someone would have said that it is a fake affidavit.

          Liked by 1 person

      • michellc says:

        So you witness gang rape multiple times and never do a thing to help the girls or call the police. Yeah right.

        The thing is they can swear under oath anything, there is no way to prove or disprove any of this crap.

        Liked by 3 people

  9. Lucille says:

    From Sara Carter’s Website….

    Report: New York Times Hid Multiple Key Facts in Kavanaugh Yearbook Hit
    By Staff Writer
    September 25, 2018 | 3:18 PM EDT

    Liked by 2 people

  10. lovely says:

    Bill Cassidy (R) Louisiana is making the point, thank you Good God, saying that
    Julie Swetnick claiming that she went to 10 plus parties where gang rapes occurred and never did anything about it and returned to party after party.

    Cassidy stated firmly that it doesn’t make sense.

    Cassidy is right.

    Cassidy saying the Senate Judiciary must go ahead with the vote.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. lovely says:

    Kavanaugh Responds:

    “This is ridiculous and from the Twilight Zone. I don’t know who this is and this never happened.”

    Liked by 2 people

  12. stella says:

    We Are Living Nineteen Eighty-Four
    Victor Davis Hanson

    We Are Living Nineteen Eighty-Four
    By Victor Davis Hanson

    September 25, 2018 6:30 AM

    Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh listens at his Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill, September 4, 2018. (Joshua Roberts/Reuters)
    Truth, due process, evidence, rights of the accused: All are swept aside in pursuit of the progressive agenda.

    George Orwell’s 1949 dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four is no longer fiction. We are living it right now.

    Google techies planned to massage Internet searches to emphasize correct thinking. A member of the so-called deep state, in an anonymous op-ed, brags that its “resistance” is undermining an elected president. The FBI, CIA, DOJ, and NSC were all weaponized in 2016 to ensure that the proper president would be elected — the choice adjudicated by properly progressive ideology. Wearing a wire is now redefined as simply flipping on an iPhone and recording your boss, boy- or girlfriend, or co-workers.

    But never has the reality that we are living in a surreal age been clearer than during the strange cycles of Christine Blasey Ford’s accusations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

    In Orwell’s world of 1984 Oceania, there is no longer a sense of due process, free inquiry, rules of evidence and cross examination, much less a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Instead, regimented ideology — the supremacy of state power to control all aspects of one’s life to enforce a fossilized idea of mandated quality — warps everything from the use of language to private life…

    Liked by 2 people

  13. lovely says:

    Lindsey Grahm defending Kavanaugh.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. According to Wikipedia (yeah I know) Kavanaugh was one of the ones on the Starr report that wanted Clinton’s impeachment. Canada Free Press has an article & photo about how Kavanaugh was being forward as a Bush Supreme Court nominee in 2012 – gee, soon after Ford remembers.

    And oh yeah – what about Cory Booker’s written article saying he groped women. Why wasn’t he forced off committee, and according to dems, out of Senate? And Bernie Sander’s article saying how women fantasize about wanting rape?

    Liked by 3 people

  15. Jacqueline Taylor Robson says:

    OK, in 1882 she would be 20 years old. She was at a party witnessing minors getting drugged and raped? And she swears to it? Doesn’t this make her an accomplice? Lock her and her filthy lawyer up!

    Liked by 2 people

  16. lovely says:

    This is how all of this rubbish ends.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. michellc says:

    I was just saying to my brother last night that this #metoo crap was going to start filtering down to regular folks. Now this, a 13 year old boy falsely accused yet treated like a criminal by school. Whether it’s your husband, brother, son, grandson, etc. they could do no more than look at a nut the wrong way now and be accused because it’s a “thing” now.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. stella says:

    From Facebook:

    26 mins ·
    JUST IN: Ex-boyfriend filed restraining order against third Kavanaugh accuser: “She was threatening my family, threatening my wife and threatening to do harm to my baby,” Richard Vinneccy said. “I know a lot about her. She’s not credible at all. Not at all.” – Politico

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.