Supreme Court

October 8, 2018
Washington Post
Dear Christine Blasey Ford: What a difference you made

Patti Davis is the author, most recently, of the novel “The Earth Breaks in Colors ” and the daughter of Ronald and Nancy Reagan.

Dear Professor Christine Blasey Ford,

Like millions of women, I watched you testify about the worst day of your life. Millions of us identified with your fear and wondered if we would be brave enough to wrestle ourselves past that grip of terror if we were in your shoes. Millions of us watched how you held onto the tears that wanted to come up; we know where that place is in the body — the place that pushes down on the rising tide of remembered pain. We know how hard that is. We’ve been holding onto our tears for a long time — some of us, like you, for decades.

I wonder how you feel now that Brett M. Kavanaugh’s hand — the one you say clamped down on your mouth when you were 15 — is now on the scales of justice. I wonder if you feel that everything you went through wasn’t worth it, that it accomplished nothing. I hope your family and friends are assuring you that you did make a difference in this country. You did move the needle, even though so many who politely listened to you decided to ignore your story. I want to add my voice and let you know that I speak for crowds of women who are only now feeling that they can speak out and reveal their own stories.

You spoke for all the women and girls who stood under scalding hot showers trying to scrub away the feel and smell of their rapist. Who shut their eyes against their tears and made up their minds to tell no one because silence was safer — and who would believe them anyway? You spoke for the mothers who are only now learning that their daughters were assaulted by a friend, a stranger, a family member. And for the daughters who are listening to their mothers tell them that a long time ago something terrible happened and they never said a word about it until now.

You spoke for fathers and brothers who wished they had known sooner and who don’t know what to do with the pain now that they do know.

You imprinted this country at a time when we are caught between the jagged edges of the past and the murky uncertainty of a future that those who only care about “winning” are trying to wrest from us.

Don’t believe Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) when he says this will “blow over.” It won’t. Women are not going to retreat again into silence and shame; it doesn’t work like that. That’s not who we are, and you helped us see that.

My father, Ronald Reagan, used to tell me a story about a very low, sad time in his life. It was just after he got divorced from Jane Wyman, and he felt as if he had failed. One night, he woke up from a sound sleep and sat straight up in bed. He said he felt hands gently holding his shoulders, and suddenly the most profound sense of peace came over him. He felt protected, loved. As a young child, when I first heard the story, I of course asked why he didn’t turn around and see who it was. He smiled and said, “I didn’t need to.”

My wish for you is that you feel hands on your shoulders, holding you steady and reminding you that millions of hands are stretched out to you in gratitude and in support. Our hope is that you know what a difference you made.   Source

October 3, 2018
New Yorker
The F.B.I. Probe Ignored Testimonies from Former Classmates of Kavanaugh

Frustrated potential witnesses who have been unable to speak with the F.B.I agents conducting the investigation into sexual-assault allegations against Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, have been resorting to sending statements, unsolicited, to the Bureau and to senators, in hopes that they would be seen before the inquiry concluded. On Monday, President Trump said that the Bureau should be able to interview “anybody they want within reason,” but the extent of the constraints placed on the investigating agents by the White House remained unclear. Late Wednesday night, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that the F.B.I. probe was over and cleared the way for an important procedural vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination to take place on Friday. NBC News reported that dozens of people who said that they had information about Kavanaugh had contacted F.B.I. field offices, but agents had not been permitted to talk to many of them. Several people interested in speaking to the F.B.I. expressed exasperation in interviews with The New Yorker at what they perceived to be a lack of interest in their accounts.

Deborah Ramirez, one of two women who have accused Kavanaugh of sexual abuse, said in an interview that she had been hopeful that her story would be investigated when two agents drove from Denver to Boulder, Colorado, last weekend to interview her at her lawyer’s office. But Ramirez said that she was troubled by what she perceived as a lack of willingness on the part of the Bureau to take steps to substantiate her claims. “I am very alarmed, first, that I was denied an F.B.I. investigation for five days, and then, when one was granted, that it was given on a short timeline and that the people who were key to corroborating my story have not been contacted,” Ramirez said. “I feel like I’m being silenced.”

Ramirez, a classmate of Kavanaugh’s at Yale, says that he exposed himself to her during a drunken dormitory party and thrust his penis in her face, which led to her touching it against her will. Kavanaugh has denied the allegation, along with that of Christine Blasey Ford, a professor from California who said that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her at a party when they were teen-agers. Several former Yale students who claim to have information regarding the alleged incident with Ramirez or about Kavanaugh’s behavior at Yale said that they had not been contacted by the F.B.I. Kenneth G. Appold was a suitemate of Kavanaugh’s at the time of the alleged incident. He had previously spoken to The New Yorker about Ramirez on condition of anonymity, but he said that he is now willing to be identified because he believes that the F.B.I. must thoroughly investigate her allegation. Appold, who is the James Hastings Nichols Professor of Reformation History at Princeton Theological Seminary, said that he first heard about the alleged incident involving Kavanaugh and Ramirez either the night it occurred or a day or two later. Appold said that he was “one-hundred-per-cent certain” that he was told that Kavanaugh was the male student who exposed himself to Ramirez. He said that he never discussed the allegation with Ramirez, whom he said he barely knew in college. But he recalled details—which, he said, an eyewitness described to him at the time—that match Ramirez’s memory of what happened. “I can corroborate Debbie’s account,” he said in an interview. “I believe her, because it matches the same story I heard thirty-five years ago, although the two of us have never talked.”

Appold, who won two Fulbright Fellowships, and earned his Ph.D. in religious studies from Yale in 1994, also recalled telling his graduate-school roommate about the incident in 1989 or 1990. That roommate, Michael Wetstone, who is now an architect, confirmed Appold’s account and said, “it stood out in our minds because it was a shocking story of transgression.” Appold said that he initially asked to remain anonymous because he hoped to make contact first with the classmate who, to the best of his recollection, told him about the party and was an eyewitness to the incident. He said that he had not been able to get any response from that person, despite multiple attempts to do so. The New Yorker reached the classmate, but he said that he had no memory of the incident.

Appold reached out to the Bureau last weekend but did not hear back. Frustrated, he submitted a statement through an F.B.I. Web portal. During his first year at Yale, Appold lived in the basement of Lawrance Hall, one of the university’s freshman dormitories. He was in the same suite of bedrooms as Kavanaugh, sharing a common room. Appold said of Kavanaugh, “We didn’t hang out together, but there was no animosity between us either.” He said he believes that “there were two sides to Brett.” Those who have described the judge as studious and somewhat reserved or shy are correct, he said. He added, “that was true part of the time, but so are the other things that have been said about him. He drank a lot, and when he was drinking he could be aggressive, and belligerent. He wasn’t beating people up, but there was an edge and an obnoxiousness that I could see at the hearings. When I saw clips” of Kavanaugh’s Senate testimony, Appold said, “I remembered it immediately.”   Source

September 27, 2018
Cnn.com
American Bar Association: Delay Kavanaugh until FBI investigates assault allegations

Sept 25, 2018
NY Times
Trump Unleashes on Kavanaugh Accuser as Key Republican Wavers

Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, is a potential swing vote in the nomination of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh.CreditCreditErin Schaff for The New York Times

By Peter Baker and Nicholas Fando

WASHINGTON — President Trump assailed the latest woman to accuse Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, saying on Tuesday that she “has nothing” because she was “messed up” at the time, even as a key Republican senator urged colleagues to take the accusations seriously.

With pressure rising in advance of a make-or-break hearing on Thursday, Mr. Trump lashed out in a more vociferous way than he has since his nominee came under fire for allegations of sexual assault, blaming Democrats for orchestrating a “con game” and targeting one of Judge Kavanaugh’s accusers in scathing, personal terms.

“The second accuser has nothing,” Mr. Trump said. “She thinks maybe it could have been him, maybe not. She admits that she was drunk. She admits time lapses. There were time lapses. This is a person, and this is a series of statements, that’s going to take one of the most talented and one of the greatest intellects from a judicial standpoint in our country, going to keep him off the United States Supreme Court?”

The Senate Judiciary Committee’s Republican leadership said on Tuesday that it had retained an outside counsel — Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, called her a “female assistant” — to aid in Thursday’s hearing to question Judge Kavanaugh’s first accuser, Christine Blasey Ford.

Rachel Mitchell, the chief of the Special Victims Division of the Maricopa County attorney’s office in Arizona, has been hired to question Dr. Blasey rather than having the 11 male Republicans grill her about the sexual assault in high school that she has described. Dr. Blasey had sought to have the senators question her rather than a lawyer.

As Mr. Trump and Republican leaders insisted that they will install Judge Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court despite the accusations, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, a crucial Republican swing vote, offered a blunt warning of her own: Do not prejudge sexual assault allegations against the nominee.

“We are now in a place where it’s not about whether or not Judge Kavanaugh is qualified,” Ms. Murkowski said in an extended interview on Monday night in the Capitol. “It is about whether or not a woman who has been a victim at some point in her life is to be believed.”

With a 51-to-49 majority, Senate Republicans can afford to lose only one vote, assuming they get no Democrats. If Ms. Murkowski votes no, she could swing Senator Susan Collins of Maine, the other abortion-rights Republican in the Senate. But Republican leaders went ahead to schedule a committee vote for Friday, just a day after the hearing, a move that drew rebukes from Democrats who said the majority was not taking the allegations seriously. “I’m confident we’re going to win,” Mr. McConnell said.

Senate Judiciary Committee staff members interviewed Judge Kavanaugh by telephone on Tuesday about Deborah Ramirez, the second accuser, who went public this week with her account of college-age sexual misconduct. Ms. Ramirez said in an interview with The New Yorker that Judge Kavanaugh exposed himself to her during a drinking party while they were students at Yale. She was initially reluctant to characterize the judge’s role, but said that after six days of assessing memories, she was confident that he was the one who took down his pants.

Judge Kavanaugh denied her allegation to committee staff members, just as he previously has Dr. Blasey’s account, according to people familiar with the interview. Republican staff members led the interview and Democratic aides listened in without asking questions. For now, the committee has not called Ms. Ramirez to testify.

McConnell’s Fix for Judiciary Panel’s Gender Gap: ‘Female Assistant’
Senator Mitch McConnell said that being male didn’t preclude making a fair decision but that “a female assistant” was hired to question Christine Blasey Ford before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Trump’s aggressive comments on Tuesday came after privately expressing concern that Judge Kavanaugh had been too weak during an interview on Monday night on Fox News. The judge rejected the allegations against him in a calm way, growing a little emotional at the end, but the president and some of his advisers worried that he was not forceful or indignant enough. Judge Kavanaugh repeated some of the same scripted lines repeatedly, to the point that some of his allies believed it came across as robotic.

Image
“I had not made a decision, and obviously the hearing Thursday is an important one,” Senator Susan Collins of Maine told reporters on Tuesday.CreditErin Schaff for The New York Times

The president hinted at his private disappointment in his public comments to reporters on Tuesday. “He was so truthful,” he said of the judge. “You’re also not seeing him on his footing. This isn’t his footing. He’s never been here before. He’s never had any charges like this, I mean charges come up from 36 years ago that are totally unsubstantiated.”

But Ms. Murkowski’s expressions of concern undercut Republican efforts to paint the accusations as a grand Democratic plot. She was always expected to be a critical vote in Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation process. But she is making clear that, beyond matters of abortion, she is deeply troubled by Dr. Blasey’s story.

In the interview, Ms. Murkowski emphasized how invested she was in assessing Dr. Blasey’s story. Her view that an “arbitrary timeline” should not scuttle a potential hearing helped nudge Republicans toward reaching an agreement with the accuser’s lawyers last weekend. She canceled a meeting of the Senate committee she leads on Thursday to ensure her schedule was clear. And although she is not on the Judiciary Committee, she will be watching.

“All you can try to do is be as fair as possible to ensure that at the end of the day justice is delivered,” Ms. Murkowski said.

As senators face contradictory testimony from Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Blasey, with little hope of independent corroboration, Ms. Murkowski is emerging as an important voice, along with Ms. Collins, Senator Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, and, possibly, Senator Dean Heller of Nevada, the only Republican up for re-election in November in a state won by Hillary Clinton two years ago.

As new accusations surface, their ultimate decisions looked ever more difficult. Late Monday night, a freshman roommate of Judge Kavanaugh’s at Yale, James Roche, released a statement in support of Ms. Ramirez.

“Although Brett was normally reserved, he was a notably heavy drinker, even by the standards of the time,” he wrote, adding, “he became aggressive and belligerent when he was very drunk.”

Another Yale schoolmate, Steve Kantrowitz, took to Twitter on Tuesday to contradict the assertion Judge Kavanaugh made on Fox that he was a virgin in high school and “for many years thereafter.”

“Perhaps Brett Kavanaugh was a virgin for many years after high school,” he wrote. “But he claimed otherwise in a conversation with me during our freshman year in Lawrence Hall at Yale, in the living room of my suite.”

Steve Kantrowitz@skantrow

Perhaps Brett Kavanaugh was a virgin for many years after high school. But he claimed otherwise in a conversation with me during our freshman year in Lawrance Hall at Yale, in the living room of my suite.

In lashing out on Tuesday, Mr. Trump dispensed with the restraint that advisers have urged him to exercise and adopted the attack mode he prefers. He portrayed the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh as character assassination, and he challenged the credibility of Ms. Ramirez even more sharply than he did Dr. Blasey last week.

“She said she was totally inebriated and she was all messed up and she doesn’t know it was him but it might have been him,” Mr. Trump said while in New York for the annual session of the United Nations General Assembly. Then, speaking sarcastically, he added, “Oh, gee, let’s not make him a Supreme Court judge because of that.”

As the president of Colombia looked on, Mr. Trump accused the Democrats of smearing Judge Kavanaugh. “I think it’s horrible what the Democrats have done. It’s a con game they’re playing; they’re really con artists,” he said. “They’re playing a con game,” he continued, “and they play it very well. They play it actually much better than the Republicans.”

Image

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Charles E. Grassley, hired an outside lawyer to question Christine Blasey Ford on behalf of Republicans.CreditErin Schaff for The New York Times

He went on to call it a con game several more times, even at one point spelling it out, “C-O-N.”

Democrats argued that Mr. Trump and other Republicans were rendering a verdict before actually hearing from any accusers. “Senate Republicans promised that ‘anyone who comes forward as Dr. Ford has deserves to be heard,’” Senate Democrats said in a statement. “Unfortunately, it appears that Republican leaders have prejudged the outcome of Thursday’s hearing.”

For many Republicans, though, the charges and countercharges have only cemented their view that Judge Kavanaugh is being smeared by a coordinated campaign of Democrats and liberal activists.

Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee, said he was not persuaded by Ms. Ramirez’s story. “I read The New Yorker article. It’s pretty thin. No one else remembered any of it,” he said. “This is really getting kind of carried away, it’s feeling more like a circus. But again, I did feel like this first accuser should be heard.”

In the interview, Ms. Murkowski was not so dismissive of the accusations. “We are at just a difficult place because the conversation is not rational on either side,” she said. She added: “Just look at some of the hateful things that are being said out there. How do you dial that back?”

“We need to be able to listen,” she said, pledging to take Dr. Blasey seriously. “We have to listen to what she will say on the record, under oath, and what Judge Kavanaugh will say on the record, under oath.”

When Dr. Blasey, a research psychologist in Northern California who also goes by her married name, Ford, came forward in an interview this month with The Washington Post, Ms. Murkowski and Ms. Collins had largely completed exhaustive reviews of Judge Kavanaugh’s career and legal writing, including follow-up calls with the nominee just two days before. Both senators were particularly interested in Judge Kavanaugh’s views on Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark decision that established a constitutional right to abortion, but privately, fellow Republicans believed the judge had probably won their support — and with it a ticket onto the court.

Those views will still influence their decisions, both senators have said. Ms. Murkowski said on Monday that Judge Kavanaugh had laid out for her a powerful case about the importance of precedent and the “reliance of interest” it creates.

“How he articulated how it had been reinforced in so many different steps, I certainly have greater confidence with the way that he portrayed to me how he views Roe,” she said.

Ms. Collins, an institutional-minded centrist who carefully reviews judicial nominees, has expressed similar views on Judge Kavanaugh and Roe and indicated that she will watch on Thursday with equal vigor.

“I had not made a decision, and obviously the hearing Thursday is an important one,” Ms. Collins told reporters on Tuesday. She expressed concern about Ms. Ramirez’s accusation and suggested that the Judiciary Committee question her under oath as well as Dr. Blasey.

Given the explosive nature of the allegations, the decision by Republicans on the Judiciary Committee to hire an outside lawyer to question Dr. Blasey was cast as a way to preserve some sense of decorum. Mindful of the backlash after sharp questioning of Anita F. Hill during confirmation hearings for Clarence Thomas in 1991, the male Republicans preferred to pass off the task to a professional and a woman.

“We have done it because we want to depoliticize the whole process, like the Democrats politicized the Anita Hill thing,” said Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa and the chairman of the committee. He said he hoped to create an environment that would “not be a circus.”    Source

 

September 23, 2018
The New Yorker
Senate Democrats Investigate a New Allegation of Sexual Misconduct, from Brett Kavanaugh’s College Years

As Senate Republicans press for a swift vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Senate Democrats are investigating a new allegation of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh. The claim dates to the 1983-84 academic school year, when Kavanaugh was a freshman at Yale University. The offices of at least four Democratic senators have received information about the allegation, and at least two have begun investigating it. Senior Republican staffers also learned of the allegation last week and, in conversations with The New Yorker, expressed concern about its potential impact on Kavanaugh’s nomination. Soon after, Senate Republicans issued renewed calls to accelerate the timing of a committee vote. The Democratic Senate offices reviewing the allegations believe that they merit further investigation. “This is another serious, credible, and disturbing allegation against Brett Kavanaugh. It should be fully investigated,” Senator Mazie Hirono, of Hawaii, said. An aide in one of the other Senate offices added, “These allegations seem credible, and we’re taking them very seriously. If established, they’re clearly disqualifying.”

The woman at the center of the story, Deborah Ramirez, who is fifty-three, attended Yale with Kavanaugh, where she studied sociology and psychology. Later, she spent years working for an organization that supports victims of domestic violence. The New Yorker contacted Ramirez after learning of her possible involvement in an incident involving Kavanaugh. The allegation was conveyed to Democratic senators by a civil-rights lawyer. For Ramirez, the sudden attention has been unwelcome, and prompted difficult choices. She was at first hesitant to speak publicly, partly because her memories contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident. In her initial conversations with The New Yorker, she was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty. After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections to say that she remembers Kavanaugh had exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away. Ramirez is now calling for the F.B.I. to investigate Kavanaugh’s role in the incident. “I would think an F.B.I. investigation would be warranted,” she said.

In a statement, Kavanaugh wrote, “This alleged event from 35 years ago did not happen. The people who knew me then know that this did not happen, and have said so. This is a smear, plain and simple. I look forward to testifying on Thursday about the truth, and defending my good name—and the reputation for character and integrity I have spent a lifetime building—against these last-minute allegations.”

The White House spokesperson Kerri Kupec said the Administration stood by Kavanaugh. “This 35-year-old, uncorroborated claim is the latest in a coordinated smear campaign by the Democrats designed to tear down a good man. This claim is denied by all who were said to be present and is wholly inconsistent with what many women and men who knew Judge Kavanaugh at the time in college say. The White House stands firmly behind Judge Kavanaugh.”

Ramirez said that, when both she and Kavanaugh were freshmen at Yale, she was invited by a friend on the women’s soccer team to a dorm-room party. She recalled that the party took place in a suite at Lawrance Hall, in the part of Yale known as Old Campus, and that a small group of students decided to play a drinking game together. “We were sitting in a circle,” she said. “People would pick who drank.” Ramirez was chosen repeatedly, she said, and quickly became inebriated. At one point, she said, a male student pointed a gag plastic penis in her direction. Later, she said, she was on the floor, foggy and slurring her words, as that male student and another stood nearby. (Ramirez identified the two male onlookers, but, at her request, The New Yorker is not naming them.)

A third male student then exposed himself to her. “I remember a penis being in front of my face,” she said. “I knew that’s not what I wanted, even in that state of mind.” She recalled remarking, “That’s not a real penis,” and the other students laughing at her confusion and taunting her, one encouraging her to “kiss it.” She said that she pushed the person away, touching it in the process. Ramirez, who was raised a devout Catholic, in Connecticut, said that she was shaken. “I wasn’t going to touch a penis until I was married,” she said. “I was embarrassed and ashamed and humiliated.” She remembers Kavanaugh standing to her right and laughing, pulling up his pants. “Brett was laughing,” she said. “I can still see his face, and his hips coming forward, like when you pull up your pants.” She recalled another male student shouting about the incident. “Somebody yelled down the hall, ‘Brett Kavanaugh just put his penis in Debbie’s face,’ ” she said. “It was his full name. I don’t think it was just ‘Brett.’ And I remember hearing and being mortified that this was out there.”

Ramirez acknowledged that there are significant gaps in her memories of the evening, and that, if she ever presents her story to the F.B.I. or members of the Senate, she will inevitably be pressed on her motivation for coming forward after so many years, and questioned about her memory, given her drinking at the party.

And yet, after several days of considering the matter carefully, she said, “I’m confident about the pants coming up, and I’m confident about Brett being there.” Ramirez said that what has stayed with her most forcefully is the memory of laughter at her expense from Kavanaugh and the other students. “It was kind of a joke,” she recalled. “And now it’s clear to me it wasn’t a joke.”

By his freshman year, Kavanaugh was eighteen, and legally an adult. During his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Kavanaugh swore under oath that as a legal adult he had never “committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature.”

The New Yorker has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party. The magazine contacted several dozen classmates of Ramirez and Kavanaugh regarding the incident. Many did not respond to interview requests; others declined to comment, or said they did not attend or remember the party. A classmate of Ramirez’s, who declined to be identified because of the partisan battle over Kavanaugh’s nomination, said that another student told him about the incident either on the night of the party or in the next day or two. The classmate said that he is “one-hundred-per-cent sure” that he was told at the time that Kavanaugh was the student who exposed himself to Ramirez. He independently recalled many of the same details offered by Ramirez, including that a male student had encouraged Kavanaugh as he exposed himself. The classmate, like Ramirez, recalled that the party took place in a common room on the first floor in Entryway B of Lawrance Hall, during their freshman year. “I’ve known this all along,” he said. “It’s been on my mind all these years when his name came up. It was a big deal.” The story stayed with him, he said, because it was disturbing and seemed outside the bounds of typically acceptable behavior, even during heavy drinking at parties on campus. The classmate said that he had been shocked, but not necessarily surprised, because the social group to which Kavanaugh belonged often drank to excess. He recalled Kavanaugh as “relatively shy” until he drank, at which point he said that Kavanaugh could become “aggressive and even belligerent.”

Another classmate, Richard Oh, an emergency-room doctor in California, recalled overhearing, soon after the party, a female student tearfully recounting to another student an incident at a party involving a gag with a fake penis, followed by a male student exposing himself. Oh is not certain of the identity of the female student. Ramirez told her mother and sister about an upsetting incident at the time, but did not describe the details to either due to her embarrassment.

Mark Krasberg, an assistant professor of neurosurgery at the University of New Mexico who was also a member of Kavanaugh and Ramirez’s class at Yale, said Kavanaugh’s college behavior had become a topic of discussion among former Yale students soon after Kavanaugh’s nomination. In one e-mail that Krasberg received in September, the classmate who recalled hearing about the incident with Ramirez alluded to the allegation and wrote that it “would qualify as a sexual assault,” he speculated, “if it’s true.”

One of the male classmates who Ramirez said egged on Kavanaugh denied any memory of the party. “I don’t think Brett would flash himself to Debbie, or anyone, for that matter,” he said. Asked why he thought Ramirez was making the allegation, he responded, “I have no idea.” The other male classmate who Ramirez said was involved in the incident commented, “I have zero recollection.”

In a statement, two of those male classmates who Ramirez alleged were involved in the incident, the wife of a third male student she said was involved, and three other classmates, Dino Ewing, Louisa Garry, and Dan Murphy, disputed Ramirez’s account of events: “We were the people closest to Brett Kavanaugh during his first year at Yale. He was a roommate to some of us, and we spent a great deal of time with him, including in the dorm where this incident allegedly took place. Some of us were also friends with Debbie Ramirez during and after her time at Yale. We can say with confidence that if the incident Debbie alleges ever occurred, we would have seen or heard about it—and we did not. The behavior she describes would be completely out of character for Brett. In addition, some of us knew Debbie long after Yale, and she never described this incident until Brett’s Supreme Court nomination was pending. Editors from the New Yorker contacted some of us because we are the people who would know the truth, and we told them that we never saw or heard about this.”

The former friend who was married to the male classmate alleged to be involved, and who signed the statement, said of Ramirez, “This is a woman I was best friends with. We shared intimate details of our lives. And I was never told this story by her, or by anyone else. It never came up. I didn’t see it; I never heard of it happening.” She said she hadn’t spoken with Ramirez for about ten years, but that the two women had been close all through college, and Kavanaugh had remained part of what she called their “larger social circle.” In an initial conversation with The New Yorker, she suggested that Ramirez may have been politically motivated. Later, she said that she did not know if this was the case.

Ramirez is a registered Democrat, but said that her decision to speak out was not politically motivated and, regarding her views, that she “works toward human rights, social justice, and social change.” Ramirez said that she felt “disappointed and betrayed” by the statements from classmates questioning her allegation, “because I clearly remember people in the room whose names are on this letter.”

Several other classmates said that they believed Ramirez to be credible and honest, and vouched for her integrity. James Roche was roommates with Kavanaugh at the time of the alleged incident and is now the C.E.O. of a software company in San Francisco. “Debbie and I became close friends shortly after we both arrived at Yale,” he said. “She stood out as being exceptionally honest and gentle. I cannot imagine her making this up.” He said that he never witnessed Kavanaugh engage in any sexual misconduct, but did recall him being “frequently, incoherently drunk.” He described Ramirez as a vulnerable outsider. “Is it believable that she was alone with a wolfy group of guys who thought it was funny to sexually torment a girl like Debbie? Yeah, definitely. Is it believable that Kavanaugh was one of them? Yes.” Another acquaintance from college, Jennifer Klaus, similarly said that she considered the allegation plausible, adding, “Debbie’s always been a very truthful, kind—almost to the point of being selfless—individual.” A third classmate, who Ramirez thought had attended the party, said that she was not present at the incident. The former student, who asked not to be named, said that she also found Ramirez credible.

Former students described an atmosphere at Yale at the time in which alcohol-fuelled parties often led to behavior similar to that described by Ramirez. “I believe it could have happened,” another classmate who knew both Kavanaugh and Ramirez said. Though she was not aware of Kavanaugh being involved in any specific misconduct, she recalled that heavy drinking was routine and that Ramirez was sometimes victimized and taunted by male students in his social circle. “They were always, like, ‘Debbie’s here!,’ and then they’d get into their ‘Lord of the Flies’ thing,” she said. While at Yale, Kavanaugh became a member of the Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity, or “DKE,” which several students said was known for its wild and, in the view of some critics, misogynistic parties. Kavanaugh was also a member of an all-male secret society, Truth and Courage, which was popularly known by the nickname “Tit and Clit.”

Ramirez said that she continued to socialize with one of the male classmates who had egged Kavanaugh on during the party during college; she even invited the classmate to her house for Thanksgiving one year, after he told her that he had nowhere to go. She also attended his wedding, years later, as a guest of his wife, and said that she posed for photographs with Kavanaugh, smiling.

Ramirez said that she remained silent about the matter and did not fully confront her memories about it for years because she blamed herself for drinking too much. “It was a story that was known, but it was a story I was embarrassed about,” she said. More recently, she has begun to reassess what happened. “Even if I did drink too much, any person observing it, would they want their daughter, their granddaughter, with a penis in their face, while they’re drinking that much?” she said. “I can say that at fifty-three, but when I was nineteen or twenty I was vulnerable. I didn’t know better.” Reflecting on the incident now, she said she considers Kavanaugh’s male classmates culpable. “They’re accountable for not stopping this,” she said. However, “What Brett did is worse.” She added, “What does it mean, that this person has a role in defining women’s rights in our future?”

As Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings became a national story, the discussions among Ramirez and Kavanaugh’s classmates took on heightened urgency, eventually spreading to news organizations and to the Senate. Senate aides from Ramirez’s home state of Colorado alerted a lawyer, Stanley Garnett, a former Democratic district attorney in Boulder, who currently represents her. Ramirez ultimately decided to begin telling her story publicly, before others did so for her. “I didn’t want any of this,” she said. “But now I have to speak.”

Ramirez said that she hoped her story would support that of Christine Blasey Ford, the California professor who has raised an allegation of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh that bears several similarities to Ramirez’s claim. Like Ramirez, Ford said that Kavanaugh was involved in sexual misconduct at a party while drunk and egged on by a male friend. In July, she sent a letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein alleging that, at a party in the summer of 1982, when she was fifteen and Kavanaugh was seventeen and in high school, Kavanaugh pushed her into a bedroom, locked the door, pinned her to a bed, and covered her mouth to stop her screams as he attempted to pull off her clothes. Details of Ford’s allegation were initially made public by The New Yorker, which did not name her at the time. Subsequently, she disclosed her name in an interview with the Washington Post. In her letter, Ford said that during the incident she feared that Kavanaugh might inadvertently kill her. She alleged that a male friend and Georgetown Prep classmate of Kavanaugh’s, Mark Judge, was present in the room, alternately urging Kavanaugh to “go for it” and to “stop.” Kavanaugh has denied the allegation.

Ford’s allegation has made Judge a potentially pivotal witness for Kavanaugh. Judge told The New Yorker that he had “no recollection” of such an incident. Judge, who is a conservative writer, later gave an interview to The Weekly Standard in which he called Ford’s allegation “just absolutely nuts,” adding, “I never saw Brett act that way.” Asked by the interviewer whether he could remember any “sort of rough-housing with a female student back in high school” that might have been “interpreted differently by parties involved,” Judge told the publication, “I can’t. I can recall a lot of rough-housing with guys.” He added, “I don’t remember any of that stuff going on with girls.”

After seeing Judge’s denial, Elizabeth Rasor, who met Judge at Catholic University and was in a relationship with him for about three years, said that she felt morally obligated to challenge his account that “ ‘no horseplay’ took place at Georgetown Prep with women.” Rasor stressed that “under normal circumstances, I wouldn’t reveal information that was told in confidence,” but, she said, “I can’t stand by and watch him lie.” In an interview with The New Yorker, she said, “Mark told me a very different story.” Rasor recalled that Judge had told her ashamedly of an incident that involved him and other boys taking turns having sex with a drunk woman. Rasor said that Judge seemed to regard it as fully consensual. She said that Judge did not name others involved in the incident, and she has no knowledge that Kavanaugh participated. But Rasor was disturbed by the story and noted that it undercut Judge’s protestations about the sexual innocence of Georgetown Prep. (Barbara Van Gelder, an attorney for Judge, said that he “categorically denies” the account related by Rasor. Van Gelder said that Judge had no further comment.)

Another woman who attended high school in the nineteen-eighties in Montgomery County, Maryland, where Georgetown Prep is located, also refuted Judge’s account of the social scene at the time, sending a letter to Ford’s lawyers saying that she had witnessed boys at parties that included Georgetown Prep students engaging in sexual misconduct. In an interview, the woman, who asked to have her name withheld for fear of political retribution, recalled that male students “would get a female student blind drunk” on what they called “jungle juice”—grain alcohol mixed with Hawaiian Punch—then try to take advantage of her. “It was disgusting,” she said. “They treated women like meat.”

Kavanaugh’s attitude toward women has come to play a central role in his confirmation process. His backers have offered portrayals of his strong support for girls and women. When Kavanaugh accepted Trump’s nomination to the Court at a White House event in July, he and Trump both stressed that he had numerous female law clerks, and that he coached his young daughters’ school basketball teams. During his Senate confirmation hearings, Kavanaugh at one point ushered into the Senate hearing room a large group of school girls whose basketball games he had coached, showcasing his warm and supportive relationships with women. Earlier this month, on the same day The New Yorker reported details of Ford’s allegation, Republicans on the Judiciary Committee released a letter from sixty-five women defending the nominee. On Monday, CNN reported that the White House has been contacting many of those women again, hoping to present their perspective to the media, perhaps as part of a group news conference.

The very different portrayals of Kavanaugh and his social scene offered by Ford, and now Ramirez, come at a crucial point in the confirmation process. On Friday, the Republican Senator Charles Grassley, of Iowa, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, issued a public ultimatum to Ford, announcing that he would schedule the committee’s vote on Kavanaugh’s confirmation for Monday morning if she did not respond to an invitation to testify by a deadline, set first for Friday night and then for Saturday afternoon. Lawyers for Ford had pushed back, demanding an outside investigation of Ford’s allegation by the F.B.I. before she offered testimony, and said that she needed additional time to prepare. The White House and F.B.I. have declined to pursue that F.B.I. investigation, though Grassley has stated that his office has conducted its own inquiries into the matter. On Sunday, Ford’s lawyer and the committee reached an agreement for her to testify on Thursday.

In a statement, Kavanaugh’s attorneys Beth Wilkinson and Alexandra Walsh wrote, “Judge Kavanaugh fully and honestly answered the Judiciary Committee’s questions over multiple days only to have unsubstantiated allegations come out when a vote on his confirmation was imminent. What matters in situations like these are facts and evidence.” Like Kavanaugh, they said that, on Thursday, “testimony and evidence will confirm what Judge Kavanaugh has made clear all along—that he did not commit the sexual assault Dr. Blasey Ford describes.”

The issue has proved to be politically delicate for the White House. Last week, Vanity Fair reported that White House officials were concerned about additional allegations against Kavanaugh emerging, and cited a source who claimed that Ivanka Trump, the President’s daughter and adviser, had urged him to withdraw Kavanaugh’s nomination. Trump has defended Kavanaugh in the wake of Ford’s allegations. In a series of tweets on Friday, he sought to undermine her account of events, writing, “I have no doubt that, if the attack on Dr. Ford was as bad as she says, charges would have been immediately filed with local Law Enforcement Authorities by either her or her loving parents.” He described Kavanaugh as “a fine man,” who he wrote was “under assault by radical left wing politicians.”

Ramirez said that witnessing the attempts to discredit Ford had made her frightened to share her own story, which she knew would be attacked due to the gaps in her memory and her level of inebriation at the time. “I’m afraid how this will all come back on me,” she said. Her attorney, Garnett, said that he and Ramirez had not yet decided when and how she would convey the details of her allegation to the Senate Judiciary Committee and whether new counsel would represent her in Washington. “We’re carefully evaluating what the appropriate next steps would be,” he said. They both said that an F.B.I. investigation of the matter was merited. “I do believe an F.B.I. investigation of this kind of character-related information would be appropriate, and would be an effective way to relay the information to the committee,” Garnett said. Of Ramirez, he added, “She’s as careful and credible a witness as I’ve encountered in thirty-six years of practicing law.” Ramirez said that she hoped an investigation could be carried out before the committee voted on Kavanaugh’s nomination. “At least look at it,” she said of her claim. “At least check it out.”    Source

Sept 3, 2018
nytimes.com
An Advocate for Women or a Threat? As Hearings Begin, Differing Views of Kavanaugh Emerge

WASHINGTON — Two wildly different portraits of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh are set to emerge on Tuesday when he appears on Capitol Hill for the opening of his Supreme Court confirmation hearings. One is a champion for women; the other a threat to women’s rights.

Republicans will present Judge Kavanaugh to the nation as an experienced, independent-minded jurist with a sparkling résumé, and as an advocate and mentor for women in the judiciary. Among the cases they will cite: his 2009 ruling in favor of Emily’s List, the group that backs Democratic women who support abortion rights.

Democrats will tell an entirely different story, painting Judge Kavanaugh as a far-right extremist who would roll back abortion rights, deny health coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, protect President Trump from the threat of subpoena — and as someone who may have misled Congress when he testified during his appeals court confirmation hearing in 2006.

Those two competing narratives will define the contours of a deeply partisan and immensely consequential battle over Mr. Trump’s Supreme Court nominee. But while Democrats vowed early on to scuttle the Kavanaugh nomination — Senator Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader, promised to “oppose him with everything I’ve got” — they are unlikely to find success.

Democrats have been unable to muster much public outrage over his nomination or Republicans’ refusal to grant them full access to documents from Judge Kavanaugh’s time working for former President George W. Bush. Even the Trump White House’s decision over the weekend to keep 100,000 pages secret produced little blowback. On Monday night, just 13 hours before the hearings were to begin, lawyers for Mr. Bush gave the Senate 42,000 pages of confidential documents, prompting an irate Mr. Schumer to call the document production process “absurd,” on Twitter, adding, “Not a single senator will be able to review these records before tomorrow.”

Democrats also fell flat in their effort to delay the hearings after Mr. Trump’s former lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, implicated the president in a hush-money scheme to influence the 2016 election.

Judge Kavanaugh, 53, has spent the past 12 years on the federal appeals court here — a traditional steppingstone to the Supreme Court. If he is confirmed, he will shape the course of American jurisprudence for generations to come, filling the seat long occupied by the retired Justice Anthony M. Kennedy — a critical swing vote on divisive matters like same-sex marriage and abortion — with a committed conservative who would push a rightward-leaning court even further in that direction.

“The stakes are so high,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “We’re talking about a vote on the United States Supreme Court that could well decide whether women can decide when they want to have children, and whether Americans can decide whom they want to marry.”

But Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the Judiciary Committee chairman, argued in an interview Monday that it was folly to try to predict how Judge Kavanaugh might vote on any given matter.

“How do I know what he’s going to rule on 10 years from now?” Mr. Grassley asked. “All I want is somebody that’s going to interpret the Constitution strictly and leave legislating to the Congress of the United States, and I think he’s the sort of guy who will do that.”

The hearings will play out for the next four days before the judiciary panel, with opening statements on Tuesday by senators and Judge Kavanaugh, followed by two days of questioning and a final day of testimony from outside witnesses. As Mr. Blumenthal, perhaps in a moment of understatement, predicted, “Sparks will fly.”

Judge Kavanaugh’s views on reproductive rights and Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 case legalizing abortion, will take center stage. In addition to demanding to know whether he believes the case was correctly decided — a question he is all but certain to refuse to answer — Democrats will question him aggressively about his dissent in the case of Garza v. Hargan, in which he argued that a 17-year-old undocumented immigrant should not be permitted to have an immediate abortion. They have called Rochelle Garza, the girl’s lawyer, as a witness.

And in this era of #MeToo, Democrats also plan to raise pointed questions about Judge Kavanaugh’s views on sexual harassment. Senator Mazie Hirono, Democrat of Hawaii, plans to ask Judge Kavanaugh if he has ever sexually harassed anyone — a question she said she asks of all nominees — and will also ask him about a judge for whom he clerked, Alex Kozinski, who abruptly retired last year from the federal appeals court amid harassment allegations.

Republicans intend to push back by highlighting Judge Kavanaugh’s record of hiring female clerks — 25 of his 48 clerks have been women — and by making the case that he has taken pains to mentor women. Among those who will formally introduce him on Tuesday are Condoleezza Rice, the former secretary of state, and Lisa S. Blatt, a self-described “liberal Democrat and feminist” lawyer who has advocated Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

“We want to lay the groundwork to show that this has been a judge who is empowering and mentoring women,” said one Senate Republican aide, speaking anonymously to discuss strategy.

Judge Kavanaugh has expressed strong support for executive power, hostility to administrative agencies, and support for religious freedom and for gun rights. Democrats will press him on all of these topics, but are expected to drill especially deeply into his assertion, in a 2009 Minnesota Law Review article, that sitting presidents should be “excused from some of the burdens of ordinary citizenship,” including responding to civil and criminal lawsuits.

Those comments are especially relevant in light of the special counsel investigation being led by Robert S. Mueller III. Democrats want Judge Kavanaugh to commit to recusing himself from ruling on matters involving that inquiry — a commitment he will undoubtedly avoid making.

But perhaps the most blistering accusation Democrats will levy is that Judge Kavanaugh was untruthful during his 2006 testimony, when he told the judiciary panel that he was “not involved in the questions about the rules governing” the treatment of terror suspects. A White House spokesman, Raj Shah, has said the testimony “accurately reflected the facts.”

An email, recently made public as part of a trove of Bush records, shows that while working in the Bush White House Counsel’s Office, the future judge volunteered to prepare a senior Bush administration official to testify about the government’s monitoring of conversations between certain terrorism suspects and their lawyers.

Democrats, led by Senators Richard J. Durbin of Illinois and Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, had questioned Judge Kavanaugh’s veracity even before that email’s release. In an interview, Mr. Leahy drew a comparison between Judge Kavanaugh and Judge Jay S. Bybee, who was confirmed to the federal appeals court in 2003 — years before the release of memos showing that, as head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, he had given the C.I.A. its first detailed legal approval for waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques.

“Had that come out before the confirmation,” Mr. Leahy said, “I doubt very much that he would have been confirmed.”

In a narrowly divided Senate — 50 Republicans, 47 Democrats and two independents who caucus with Democrats — the Kavanaugh nomination could be defeated if all Democrats hang together and one Republican votes no.

But two Republicans most likely to cross the aisle, Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine, both supporters of abortion rights, have made favorable comments about Judge Kavanaugh. And at least three Democrats — Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia — are facing re-election in states won by Mr. Trump and are under intense pressure to vote in favor. None of those senators are on the Judiciary Committee.

Supreme Court confirmation hearings are always as much about political theater as they are about substance, and Judge Kavanaugh’s will be no exception. Several Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee — Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kamala Harris of California and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota — are possible 2020 presidential aspirants and will no doubt take advantage of the free national television exposure.

Judge Kavanaugh, too, will take advantage of that limelight. In the nearly two months since Mr. Trump nominated him, he has been a silent presence in Washington, traipsing through the corridors of the Capitol complex, trailed by a retinue of security officers and advisers, as he made the customary “courtesy visits” to senators.

Now he will have a chance to speak for himself, spotlighting his academic pedigree — he has undergraduate and law degrees from Yale — and addressing questions not only about his judicial record, but also the more contentious aspects of his résumé, including his days working for Kenneth W. Starr, the independent counsel who investigated former President Bill Clinton.

While there, he urged prosecutors to pose graphic questions to Mr. Clinton about his relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky — a history that Democrats will invoke as they try to cast Judge Kavanaugh as a partisan political operative.

“Will the real Brett Kavanaugh please stand up?” said Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director of the Judicial Crisis Network, a conservative advocacy group. “You hear very contrasting views. This is a chance for people to see who is telling the truth about Judge Kavanaugh, and what is just spin.”    Source

80total visits,1visits today