Law The Search For The 114th Supreme Court Justice: The Witch-Hunt Against Judge Brett Kavanaugh

Who do you believe?


  • Total voters
    453
I'm guessing Christine Blasey Ford is not one of the women committee staff are saying falsified their claims
 
I'm guessing Christine Blasey Ford is not one of the women committee staff are saying falsified their claims

Well no, not Ford. Even though the borderline activist who scrubbed her social media before speaking made statements that were incredibly dubious, inconsistent, and contested by her own friend/witnesses, there's no actual way to prove that her 36 year old vague memory of a groping was an intentional lie.

This action is more for those individuals who have been proven to have maliciously falsified statements with the intent of harm, stemming from their political bias. Individuals who literally apologized for lying, were caught lying, etc, for the sole reason of them not liking a conservative judge.
 
Lies and the Kavanaugh hearing
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES - Sunday, October 20, 2019

ye_supreme_court_kavanaugh_50151_c0-354-5878-3781_s885x516.jpg

After being acquitted in May 1987 of all 10 counts of larceny and fraud — charges that some said were politically motivated — in connection with a New York City subway project, former Reagan administration Labor Secretary Ray Donovan turned to the Bronx prosecutor and famously asked, “Which office do I go to, to get my reputation back?”

That same thought surely has crossed the mind of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh more than once in the year since he barely survived a politically motivated, evidence-free smear campaign by liberal activists and Senate Democrats aimed at blocking his elevation to the high court.

But now, nine Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee may soon provide an answer, of sorts, for Justice Kavanaugh as to where he could go to get his reputation back.

The nine lawmakers are pressing the Justice Department and the FBI to pursue criminal charges against four people who made false rape and sexual-assault allegations against Justice Kavanaugh during his Senate confirmation hearings last year.

Justice Kavanaugh vehemently denied the accusations, and none of them was ever even remotely corroborated. To the contrary, the most high-profile charge — leveled by his primary accuser, Christine Blasey Ford — was never corroborated, not even by her longtime friend Leland Keyser. Ms. Keyser refused to change her story despite being pressured by mutual acquaintances of the two women.

Mrs. Ford’s credibility was totally shredded after she was unable to support her accusation of a sexual assault at a private party in the early 1980s with even the most basic details of when and where it supposedly happened, or how she got there or got home afterward. Moreover, no one she said was at the same party backed up her claim.

All but three of the 12 Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee signed a letter sent Oct. 8 to Attorney General William Barr and FBI Director Christopher Wray seeking information on the status of the committee’s four referrals for criminal probes, initially submitted a year ago.

“The Committee referred four individuals to the [Justice Department] and FBI for investigation of potential violations of 18 U.S.C. 1001 (materially false statements) and 1505 (obstruction), for false statements made to the Committee during the course of its investigation,” the lawmakers wrote. “It also referred two of those same individuals for potential violations of 18 U.S.C. 371 (conspiracy). We seek information about what actions [the Justice Department] and FBI are taking in response to these referrals.”

This pushback by the Judiciary Committee Republicans is as necessary as it is overdue, because as long as there are no legal consequences for making false accusations, liberal activists will continue to employ these hateful, scurrilous tactics.

Character assassination is the end justifying the means at its most disgraceful. What’s also disgraceful is that none of the 10 Judiciary Committee Democrats (and the other three Republicans) signed the letter. Their silence equals complicity.

“[W]hen individuals intentionally mislead the Committee, they divert important Committee resources during time-sensitive investigations and materially impede its work,” the Republican senators’ letter says. “Such acts are not only unfair; they are potentially illegal.”

Curiously, Mrs. Ford is not among the four referred by the senators for possible criminal prosecution. Two of them are Michael Avenatti, an ambulance-and-TV-camera-chasing lawyer with a long and ugly record of legal misconduct, and a client, Julie Swetnick, who accused Justice Kavanaugh and some friends of “targeting women with alcohol/drugs in order to allow a ‘train’ of men to subsequently gang-rape them.”

The third is Judi Munroe-Leighton, who claimed Justice Kavanaugh and a friend had raped her “several times each in the back seat of a car,” but later admitted to having said so “as a way to grab attention” and that she had never even met the judge. The fourth is Jeffrey Catalan, who claimed the nominee had “assaulted a close friend on a boat in the harbor at Newport, Rhode Island, in 1985,” but who later “recanted and apologized on social media for making the false allegation.”

The senators asked that the Justice Department and FBI respond to their inquiry by Oct. 21. Messrs. Barr and Wray should not continue to stall on decisions about prosecuting this foursome’s falsehoods.

Absent severe legal consequences, there will continue to be no downside to the far left’s practice of character assassination against conservative judicial nominees and others it opposes politically.

The legal maxim “Justice delayed is justice denied” even applies to a Supreme Court justice, one who was slimed by leftist ideologues. Justice Kavanaugh deserves to get his good name — and reputation — back.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/20/editorial-lies-and-the-kavanaugh-hearing/
 
Last edited:
Well no, not Ford. Even though the borderline activist who scrubbed her social media before speaking made statements that were incredibly dubious, inconsistent, and contested by her own friend/witnesses, there's no actual way to prove that her 36 year old vague memory of a groping was an intentional lie.

This action is more for those individuals who have been proven to have maliciously falsified statements with the intent of harm, stemming from their political bias. Individuals who literally apologized for lying, were caught lying, etc, for the sole reason of them not liking a conservative judge.
If nothing else - she’s got to be given credit for being as vague as possible and therefore avoiding the hammer of perjury falling down on her.

But ultimately that whole circus along with Russiagate just proved how far gone and corrupt the left have gone.
 
If they are able to conclusively prove that an accuser filed a false claim maliciously, I'm all about sending them to prison. What Democrats and the media did to Kavanaugh was the most shameful example of dirty politics in recent memory and that's saying a lot.
 
Lies and the Kavanaugh hearing
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES - Sunday, October 20, 2019

ye_supreme_court_kavanaugh_50151_c0-354-5878-3781_s885x516.jpg

After being acquitted in May 1987 of all 10 counts of larceny and fraud — charges that some said were politically motivated — in connection with a New York City subway project, former Reagan administration Labor Secretary Ray Donovan turned to the Bronx prosecutor and famously asked, “Which office do I go to, to get my reputation back?”

That same thought surely has crossed the mind of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh more than once in the year since he barely survived a politically motivated, evidence-free smear campaign by liberal activists and Senate Democrats aimed at blocking his elevation to the high court.

But now, nine Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee may soon provide an answer, of sorts, for Justice Kavanaugh as to where he could go to get his reputation back.

The nine lawmakers are pressing the Justice Department and the FBI to pursue criminal charges against four people who made false rape and sexual-assault allegations against Justice Kavanaugh during his Senate confirmation hearings last year.

Justice Kavanaugh vehemently denied the accusations, and none of them was ever even remotely corroborated. To the contrary, the most high-profile charge — leveled by his primary accuser, Christine Blasey Ford — was never corroborated, not even by her longtime friend Leland Keyser. Ms. Keyser refused to change her story despite being pressured by mutual acquaintances of the two women.

Mrs. Ford’s credibility was totally shredded after she was unable to support her accusation of a sexual assault at a private party in the early 1980s with even the most basic details of when and where it supposedly happened, or how she got there or got home afterward. Moreover, no one she said was at the same party backed up her claim.

All but three of the 12 Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee signed a letter sent Oct. 8 to Attorney General William Barr and FBI Director Christopher Wray seeking information on the status of the committee’s four referrals for criminal probes, initially submitted a year ago.

“The Committee referred four individuals to the [Justice Department] and FBI for investigation of potential violations of 18 U.S.C. 1001 (materially false statements) and 1505 (obstruction), for false statements made to the Committee during the course of its investigation,” the lawmakers wrote. “It also referred two of those same individuals for potential violations of 18 U.S.C. 371 (conspiracy). We seek information about what actions [the Justice Department] and FBI are taking in response to these referrals.”

This pushback by the Judiciary Committee Republicans is as necessary as it is overdue, because as long as there are no legal consequences for making false accusations, liberal activists will continue to employ these hateful, scurrilous tactics.

Character assassination is the end justifying the means at its most disgraceful. What’s also disgraceful is that none of the 10 Judiciary Committee Democrats (and the other three Republicans) signed the letter. Their silence equals complicity.

“[W]hen individuals intentionally mislead the Committee, they divert important Committee resources during time-sensitive investigations and materially impede its work,” the Republican senators’ letter says. “Such acts are not only unfair; they are potentially illegal.”

Curiously, Mrs. Ford is not among the four referred by the senators for possible criminal prosecution. Two of them are Michael Avenatti, an ambulance-and-TV-camera-chasing lawyer with a long and ugly record of legal misconduct, and a client, Julie Swetnick, who accused Justice Kavanaugh and some friends of “targeting women with alcohol/drugs in order to allow a ‘train’ of men to subsequently gang-rape them.”

The third is Judi Munroe-Leighton, who claimed Justice Kavanaugh and a friend had raped her “several times each in the back seat of a car,” but later admitted to having said so “as a way to grab attention” and that she had never even met the judge. The fourth is Jeffrey Catalan, who claimed the nominee had “assaulted a close friend on a boat in the harbor at Newport, Rhode Island, in 1985,” but who later “recanted and apologized on social media for making the false allegation.”

The senators asked that the Justice Department and FBI respond to their inquiry by Oct. 21. Messrs. Barr and Wray should not continue to stall on decisions about prosecuting this foursome’s falsehoods.

Absent severe legal consequences, there will continue to be no downside to the far left’s practice of character assassination against conservative judicial nominees and others it opposes politically.

The legal maxim “Justice delayed is justice denied” even applies to a Supreme Court justice, one who was slimed by leftist ideologues. Justice Kavanaugh deserves to get his good name — and reputation — back.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/20/editorial-lies-and-the-kavanaugh-hearing/

Fuck yes! There are still idiots on here who pretend they believe Ford. She should be in prison as should everyone who orchestrated that bullshit.
 
Fuck yes! There are still idiots on here who pretend they believe Ford. She should be in prison as should everyone who orchestrated that bullshit.

Ford was 100% believable.

Kavanaugh came off as a predator
 
Woman found guilty after mailing threatening letter containing white powder to Senator Susan Collins following Kavanaugh vote
by Madison Dibble | November 04, 2019​

A jury in Maine found a woman guilty of sending threatening letters to Republican Maine Sen. Susan Collins after she voted to confirm Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Suzanne Muscara, 37, was found guilty of sending a threatening letter to Collins’s home that was filled with white powder and a note that said, “AnthRAX!!! HA HA HA!!!”

Muscara’s letter was intercepted by FBI agents who had been screening Collins’s mail after a letter sent the week prior had also contained a threatening substance.

Muscara claimed she didn’t think anyone would read the letter and thought it was a harmless joke.

“I didn’t want anything to happen,” she said when questioned by the FBI. “I just thought it was funny. I thought cops were, like, sifting through her mail. I didn’t expect anyone significant would read it.”

Beyond the threatening note, Muscara had drawn a stick person with its tongue out and the letter ‘X’ for eyes. The letter was addressed to the senator’s current home with a prior home listed as the return address.

She also denied that she knew who Collins was or that she had made one of the deciding votes to confirm Kavanaugh after his controversial nomination process.

Muscara was identified as the culprit after her fingerprint was matched to the one on file after a 2013 arrest. The sender from the original letter is still unknown.

Muscara has yet to be sentenced, but she faces up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $250,000.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...der-to-susan-collins-following-kavanaugh-vote
 
Last edited:
“I didn’t want anything to happen,” she said when questioned by the FBI. “I just thought it was funny. I thought cops were, like, sifting through her mail. I didn’t expect anyone significant would read it.”

FBI finds white powder labeled anthrax in the mail absolutely hilarious. Good job. They get a laugh every time.
 
I voted "not sure" because there are believable aspects of both sides.
I believe Brett is probably a shitty person and I believe the accusers have reasons to be upset, but you can't be destroying people in the court of public opinion without really strong evidence and the accusers only have their word. Its okay to believe the and empathize with them, but you can't take a man's life down based on that.
This is how I feel basically, too.

Brett was a shitty nominee who should have never been put forth in the first place and should be used as a reason for Judge Nominee reform. No judge should be available for these high Courts if they do not score above 70% in a peer review by the ABA. All nominees should be submitted in private and if a minimum peer score is not achieved, they are off the list.

Brett, like Bill Barr is a party partisan hit-man type who puts partisan goals over the law. Brett was brought into the Clinton impeachment search by Ken Starr for just that reason and it was said Starr would not go as far as Brett wanted in many areas. Barr was brought in to provide cover now for 2 POTUS and their illegal actions.

The goal should not be 'should they be removed' and should be 'should they have ever got the job'.
 
Brett was a shitty nominee who should have never been put forth in the first place and should be used as a reason for Judge Nominee reform. No judge should be available for these high Courts if they do not score above 70% in a peer review by the ABA. All nominees should be submitted in private and if a minimum peer score is not achieved, they are off the list.

Brett, like Bill Barr is a party partisan hit-man type who puts partisan goals over the law. Brett was brought into the Clinton impeachment search by Ken Starr for just that reason and it was said Starr would not go as far as Brett wanted in many areas. Barr was brought in to provide cover now for 2 POTUS and their illegal actions.

The goal should not be 'should they be removed' and should be 'should they have ever got the job'.

What a load of mindless drivels that was.

Everyone in this discussion thread knows the ABA thoroughly evaluated Kavanaugh, with the same rigorous standard as they did for all other Supreme Court nominees, including Obama's pick.

Partisan drones in the forum as well as the mainstream media just chose to ignore the ABA evaluation result and pretends it doesn't count, simply because it doesn't fit the narrative invented inside their echo-chamber that has no bearing whatsoever in the real world. Though I suspect that had the same ABA evaluation process determined that Kavanaugh is Unqualified, the same unbelievers would suddenly hail the ABA's evaluation as undeniable proof that Kavanaugh should not have been nominated instead, and his ABA rating would be plastered on every newspaper headline in large bold font instead of other hard-hitting exposé about Kavanaugh's affinity for watching baseball while enjoying a cold beer when he get home from work.

This is why partisan drones and their double-standards have absolutely no credibility at all. Unfortunately for their imaginary narrative, Kavanaugh's qualifications as determined by the ABA was a slam-dunk for the job, and the ABA's comprehensive evaluation process is fair and impartial as far as the law community is concerned. That's why those who are still sored about Obama's nominee being screwed by the GOP went with the #MeToo and #BaseballTickets route instead of Kavanaugh's actual court rulings, because otherwise they would have to admit to an inconvenient truth that the ABA already told them in the beginning:

ABA testifies on 'well qualified' rating: Kavanaugh has 'an excellent reputation for integrity'
BY MARK WALSH | SEPTEMBER 7, 2018​

Senate_Supreme_Court.JPG_GNWbj63_v2500x1405.jpg

Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh earned the highest rating of unanimously “well qualified,” members of the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary told the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on Friday.

“We concluded that his integrity, judicial temperament, and professional competence met the highest standards for appointment to the court,” said Paul T. Moxley of Salt Lake City, the chair of the committee. “Our rating of unanimously well-qualified reflects the consensus of his peers who have knowledge of his professional qualifications.”

John R. Tarpley of Nashville, the standing committee’s representative for the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Court of Appeals and the lead evaluator, said the panel found that Kavanaugh “enjoys an excellent reputation for integrity and is a person of outstanding character. It was clear from all or our interviews and all of the other evidence that he learned the importance of integrity from a very early age.”

The testimony came on the final of four days of hearings on President Donald Trump’s nomination of Kavanaugh, 53, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, to succeed Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who retired July 31 at age 82.

Both Republican and Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee expressed appreciation for the ABA’s evaluation process even though, as Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said: “We sometimes disagree with the ABA’s ratings from a Republican point of view.

“I’m glad we have it,” Graham said. “From this committee’s point of view, this is a valuable input.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the ranking Democrat on the committee, called the ABA’s process “very important.”

“The kind of rating it is, is to some extent what colleagues know of colleague,” she said. “I think it’s important, because we see one side of the person. The ABA knows their professional side, and hears their professional side, and that’s very important.”

Moxley and Tarpley explained that the standing committee does not propose, endorse, or recommend nominees. Its sole function is to evaluate a nominee’s integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament, and then rate the nominee as “Well Qualified,” “Qualified,” or “Not Qualified.”

In so doing, the committee relies heavily on the confidential, frank, and considered assessments of lawyers, academics, judges and others who have relevant information about the nominee’s professional qualifications.

Members of the standing committee conduct separate investigations into the nominee’s professional qualifications within their respective circuits and prepare confidential reports.

For Supreme Court nominees, the standing committee assembles reading groups of scholars and practitioners to review the nominee’s written work. For Kavanaugh, the University of Maryland Law School and the University of Utah Law School formed reading groups, made up of 38 professors who are recognized experts in the substantive areas of law they reviewed. A third reading group, the Practitioners’ Reading Group, was made up of 10 nationally recognized lawyers with significant trial and appellate experience who are knowledgeable concerning Supreme Court practice.

Standing Committee members solicited input from almost 500 people who were likely to have knowledge of the nominee’s professional qualifications, including federal and state judges, lawyers and bar representatives.

The Standing Committee reached out to 471 judges, lawyers, and professors for information regarding Judge Kavanaugh’s integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament. The committee received more than 120 responses, and the committee conducted interviews with those respondents who had personal knowledge of Kavanaugh through their professional or personal dealings with him.


Tarpley provided the committee with some of the written observations made about Kavanaugh.

“He has the highest personal morality and the highest ethics,” said one.

“He is what he seems, very decent, humble, and honest,” said another.

The Maryland Law school reading group observed that “Judge Kavanaugh is an excellent writer with a flair for making complicated facts understandable.”

As to Kavanaugh’s demeanor, one respondent observed, “He is easy to get along with and has a good sense of humor.”

Tarpley told the committee: “Can you imagine that, a judge with a good sense of humor?”

Noting the ABA’s more than 400,000 members across the country, Tarpley said: “We are a very diverse group of lawyers, and we agree that Judge Kavanaugh meets our highest standard and rated him unanimously well-qualified to serve as associate justice on the United States Supreme Court.”

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/aba_kavanaugh_testimony
 
Last edited:
https://www.businessinsider.com/brett-kavanaugh-sexual-assault-accuser-judy-munro-leighton-2018-11

'I was angry, and I sent it out': Woman admits she fabricated a claim about writing an anonymous letter that accused Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault

Lies like hers were used by Dems as "evidence" that Kavanaugh should not be appointed to the SCOTUS. This woman used false rape allegations simply because somebody with different politics then hers was going to be appointed to the Supreme Court. That is especially heinous and she'd better serve a lot more than just the 10 years for the fake anthrax letter.
 
https://www.businessinsider.com/brett-kavanaugh-sexual-assault-accuser-judy-munro-leighton-2018-11

'I was angry, and I sent it out': Woman admits she fabricated a claim about writing an anonymous letter that accused Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault

angry about what? What did he ever do to her?

So fucking stupid to try and ruin someone's life because you're butt hurt. I cannot read the article because of ad-blocker and the site looks like a mess, but is there any legal action?
 
Of course he is a rapist piece of shit. When faced with the accusation he said "I don't remember doing it" or something like that. If he had not done it he would have said "I never did that". He told on himself by his choice of language. He even looks like a drunk frat boy POS.
 
angry about what? What did he ever do to her?

So fucking stupid to try and ruin someone's life because you're butt hurt. I cannot read the article because of ad-blocker and the site looks like a mess, but is there any legal action?
I am guessing she's angry because the me too movement was happening, Trump was the president and MSM with the dems wanted to find any way to stop a Supreme court nominee and the mud stuck on the wall for a second so they went full simple Jack on it because it was a plan of attack.
 
Joe Biden, Brett Kavanaugh and the #MeToo hypocrites
By Post Editorial Board | April 12, 2020

kavanaugh-biden.jpg

Hand it to the New York Times to take up the question of Tara Reade’s sexual-abuse accusations against Joe Biden … on Easter weekend, with its reduced holiday readership, in an article that does its best to minimize her charges.

It’s in stark contrast to the way the Times and its fellows treated the even thinner claims against Brett Kavanaugh during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings. And it underlines the hypocrisy of the “Believe all women” double standard.

Reade was a Senate staffer for Biden in 1993 when, she says, he pinned her to a wall, reached beneath her clothing and penetrated her with his fingers. One friend from back then recalls Reade telling her of the assault soon after, and another says she got the story a few years later, as does Reade’s brother.

But she only went public with this account late last month — having leveled lesser charges of inappropriate touching against him last year along with seven other women telling similar tales.

The Times “explains” that it took the intervening weeks to check out her story before reporting it. High up in the story, reporters Lisa Lerer and Sydney Ember note that no other Biden ex-staffers confirm Reade’s claims, no other sex-assault charges have turned up against him and “The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable.”

Just hours after that story went online Sunday, the paper cut the second half of that sentence — “beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable.” It also deleted a tweet that included the passage.

The piece also makes a point of recounting how Reade has in recent months tweeted support for Bernie Sanders and, before that, praise for Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Do you recall the Times searching the Twitter feed of Kavanaugh’s accuser, Christine Blasey Ford? Or spending weeks digging up dirt that could make her seem a flake, as the Lerer-Ember story does with Reade?

Reade is making charges about events in 1993, when she was in her 20s and Biden was 51. Ford’s claims were even older, about events in 1982, when all involved were in high school.

Unlike Reade, Ford had no one confirming she’d told the same story at the time — indeed, everyone she cited as a witness said that nothing like the party she described had ever happened.

Yet the Times (and ideological allies at other publications as well as in politics) played up every allegation against Kavanaugh, pumping up their apparent credibility exactly as it seeks to undermine Reade’s credibility now. Even months after he won confirmation, it ran a column presenting yet another “accusation” — without mentioning that the “accuser” didn’t remember it happening, and in fact wouldn’t even be interviewed.

The Gray Lady is hardly alone in this hypocrisy: The actress and #MeToo leader Alyssa Milano, for example, has suddenly discovered due process now that a candidate she favors stands accused. “We have to societally change that mindset to believing women, but that does not mean at the expense of not giving men their due process and investigating situations,” Milano said in an interview. “It’s got to be fair in both directions.”

It isn’t hard to come to the conclusion that for Republicans, it’s “guilty when accused.” Only Democrats deserve the benefit of the doubt.

https://nypost.com/2020/04/12/joe-biden-brett-kavanaugh-and-the-metoo-hypocrites/
 
Last edited:
What Biden’s recent endorsers said about Kavanaugh and #MeToo
Almost none has addressed Tara Reade’s allegations against the former VP
By Amber Athey | April 27, 2020

GettyImages-1209520025-820x550.jpg

Tara Reade, a former Senate staffer for Joe Biden, claimed in an interview last month that the former vice president had put his hand up her skirt and digitally penetrated her in 1993.

Since the March 25 interview, new evidence has emerged that seems to corroborate Reade’s story: her mother called into Larry King’s radio show about the incident in 1993, and her brother, a friend, and a neighbor all recall being told the story by Reade. Nonetheless, despite making multiple media appearances in the month since the allegation, Biden has not addressed Reade’s claim directly, though his spokespeople have denied it on his behalf. The former VP is nonetheless holding a ‘Virtual Women’s Town Hall’ on Tuesday.

Biden, who is the presumptive Democratic nominee, has also enjoyed numerous high-profile endorsements since Reade came forward, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and former President Barack Obama. The Spectator has compiled a list of 35 endorsers alongside their previous positions on sexual assault, supporting alleged victims, #BelieveWomen, and #MeToo.


Hillary Clinton (endorsed April 28)

‘Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported.’

‘Hillary’s message to survivors of sexual assault: We’re with you.’
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (endorsed April 27)

‘We must #BelieveSurvivors. I’m proud to stand with my Democratic colleagues in support of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.’

#BelieveWomen

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (endorsed April 27)

‘Brett Kavanaugh committed sexual assault and lied about it under oath.’

‘One year later, I am still awed by Dr Christine Blasey Ford’s bravery — and disgusted that neither Brett Kavanaugh nor Donald Trump have faced consequences for their actions’

‘This confirms what we already knew — Brett Kavanaugh and the president that appointed him have a history of committing sexual assault — and lying about it’
Sen. Mark Warner (endorsed April 23)

‘The Judiciary Committee simply cannot vote on Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination this Thursday. There should be a full investigation, and Professor Ford deserves to be heard. This is a serious allegation, and we have a responsibility to listen.’

‘We need to listen to Dr Ford and get to the bottom of these allegations.’

‘For too long, our political system has shut out the voices of women & silenced the stories behind the #MeToo movement.’

Gov. Jay Inslee (endorsed April 22)

‘If the Republican Senate can delay Merrick Garland’s nomination for nearly a year to steal a Supreme Court seat, they can delay Kavanaugh to investigate these disturbing allegations.

Until resolved, I call on the 30 Republican governors who have endorsed Brett Kavanaugh to rescind their endorsement immediately.’

Rep. Gwen Moore (endorsed April 22)


‘I stand with Dr Ford because, as a survivor, I #BelieveWomen. Stay strong’

‘Today’s vote to confirm Kavanaugh is a vote to silence women across the country who have come forward with their stories of survival. We will not surrender, and we will not be silenced. We will vote, and we will bring change’
 
Last edited:
Back
Top