Skip to main content

This chart shows Senate Republicans were uninterested in the facts of the Kavanaugh allegations

Republicans seemed wholly uninterested in learning more at Thursday’s hearing.

The Republican-controlled Senate was well on its way to having a floor vote to confirm Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

At least until a last-minute demand from Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) asking for a one-week delay so that the FBI could investigate allegations of sexual misconduct and assault against Kavanaugh.

Before Flake’s surprise move, it was clear from the Senate hearing on Thursday that Flake’s Republican colleagues weren’t very interested in finding out the facts behind Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her at a high school gathering. Two other women — Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnick — came forward after Ford with separate stories accusing Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct and assault. Kavanaugh has denied all the allegations against him.

We reviewed every single question senators asked during last Thursday’s hearing, when the Senate Judiciary Committee questioned both Ford and Kavanaugh. The hearing was supposed to be an opportunity for the senators to learn more on the accusations against Kavanaugh.

But our analysis shows that Republican senators weren’t particularly interested in asking Kavanaugh about the accusations or potentially related matters, including his drinking and his attitude toward women. In addition, they weren’t interested in learning about more about the allegations themselves — beyond Kavanaugh’s denials.

Rather, their primary line of questioning was about Democrats and the process that led to the hearing, which Republicans uniformly denounced. They tried to build up a narrative that the accusations against Kavanaugh were a last-minute effort to sabotage him.

Below is every single question asked by Democrats, Republicans, and the prosecutor Republicans gave time to, Rachel Mitchell, which we’ve sorted by broad categories.



from Vox - All https://ift.tt/2NXZ6pG

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

REPORT: Furious Spike Lee Paces Aisle, Turns Back To Stage...

REPORT: Furious Spike Lee Paces Aisle, Turns Back To Stage... (Top headline, 5th story, link ) Related stories: REVIEW: Hostless Show Starts With Rock & Rolls Off Rails... Actor knocks borders, walls during speech in Spanish... Stage designed to look like Trump hair? 'GREEN BOOK' OVERCOMES BACKLASH, NABS BEST PICTURE... Top Critics Fume... LIST: WINNERS... Advertise here from Drudge Report Feed https://ift.tt/2SUpIKy

Tiny Love Stories: ‘Who Was I to Deprive Him of Joy?’

By Unknown Author from NYT Style https://ift.tt/2UV7YAG

The Ugly History of Dual-Loyalty Charges

When Representative Ilhan Omar recently complained about “the political influence in this country that says it is okay to push for allegiance to a foreign country,” many noted accurately that she had deployed a trope—dual loyalty—that had been used against Jews for years. But this accusation has a broader history in the United States, having been used against several religious minorities—including Muslims like Omar. Indeed, many battles over religious freedom have revolved around dual-loyalty claims. [ Read: Ilhan Omar just made it harder to have a nuanced debate about Israel ] In the 19th century, many attacks on Catholics stressed that these immigrants were pawns of a foreign power. In the 1830s, Samuel Morse—then a prominent painter and later the inventor of the telegraph—urged Americans to build “walls” and “gates” to keep out Catholic immigrants, who would always be loyal to Rome. Because these Catholic immigrants were decrepit —“halt, and blind, and naked”—they were easy to co...