Monday, September 24, 2018

All is not fair in war and politics

Clarence Thomas during his confirmation hearing to become Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Photo: Mark Reinstein |

“They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, 'All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!'"
– John 8:7

Most Americans are familiar with the work of the late web guru and agitator Andrew Breitbart and his crusade to expose corruption and abuse in American society and politics. 

He challenged radio and TV broadcasters as well as any politician on the left and right for inappropriate behavior. He exposed corruption in special interest groups and dug up inside information on the misconduct of those that institutionalized their malfeasance. 

He took no favors or gave them to anyone. He was a hard-hitting equal opportunity offender. He refused to accept status quo as acceptable deportment in society and politics. No person or organization was safe from the long arm of Andrew Breitbart.

Andrew Breitbart’s untimely death at 43 in Brentwood, Calif., shocked his followers and his enemies as well. As news of the demise of this iconic modern day David became a reality, his truth disciples began to discover he was not always a born again version of Thomas Paine.

As reporters opened up archives of his past, Breitbart junkies and critics discovered Breitbart was once a mild-mannered leftist, Golden State hippie. He grew up in a California home where liberalism was not just their politics but the way of life. He was a Democrat until his reincarnation in the mid-90s.

“Some people don’t know how discontent they are until they are shocked into thinking about their lives.”
– Andrew Breitbart

In a 2011 magazine interview about what motivated the writing of his book “Righteous Indignation,” Breitbart disclosed the event that changed him from a global warming, tree-hugging, green-power leftist into a possessed hit man. 

It was the actions of his own party that altered his life forever. 

He was home watching the 1991 confirmation hearings of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas when they escalated into attacks. 

He could not believe anyone in his party could be so cruel as to make such hateful, unproven allegations. He said every insult was worse than the last one and his emotions turned to disgust. 

How could a party that champions black suffrage berate such a man as Thomas?

“Why has politics in this country turned into such a combat zone?”
– Andrew Breitbart

Notably, Breitbart’s generation believed Democrats were the champions of black suffrage because Democrats had buried the Democratic Party’s racism and hijacked the civil rights record of the Republican Party. 

For details, see the article by Kevin D. Williamson posted on this blogsite with the title: “Republicans and Democrats Did Not Switch Sides On Racism –UPDATE: The Party of Civil Rights.”

As the senate Democrats continued to incriminate Thomas, Breitbart discerned this was politics at its worst. As his compassion for Thomas grew, so did his antipathy for the tactics the Democratic Party engaged in assassinating the character of such a prodigious man. 

He told the reporter: “How could a party that black Americans idolize sit back and do nothing as one of their own was being lynched on national TV?” 

He continued: “As Thomas continued to refute charges of sexual harassment by the party that preached the importance of black federal leadership, no less, I could not believe what I was hearing?” 

He then remarked:

“Is this how government functions today?”
– Andrew Breitbart

Breitbart’s reaction to the left’s tactics to discredit Thomas brought about his serendipity to ditch the left in favor of the right. 

Some have said he went overboard when he jacked into the web and never unplugged after one obtuse event in 1991. 

But sometimes just a single assault against a person’s intrinsic moral beliefs will jolt them back into the real world when they have been living in La La Land.

Breitbart’s actions were not dissimilar to any reformed addict. Once addicts are saved from themselves, they seldom turn back. Many become advocates to assist those that wondered off the reservation.

“God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.”
– The AA Serenity Prayer

Breitbart became a truth seeker striking back when he felt wronged. He understood how discourse could be distorted by the pixels generated from political parties to gain the upper hand when they did not have one. 

When the moral ethos of his Jewish upbringing was violated, it offended him more than party politics. 

He claimed Thomas’ accusers were accomplished students of the teachings of leftist Saul Alinsky. 

They were practicing his theorems of “destroy.” “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon,” if you don’t have facts to support your position. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” 

And above all:

“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
– Saul Alinsky

Breitbart studied at a Hollywood Hebrew school, where he developed his impassioned commitment to moral convictions. Although his parents were Democrats, he was taught morality always trumps politics, when they left their synagogue in protest because their rabbi defended Jesse Jackson for charges of anti-Semitism after his "Hymietown" comment. 

While attending Brentwood high school, Breitbart was disturbed about the inequalities between facilities assigned to the seniors and juniors and went on a crusade to rectify them. He wrote articles on social issues for the school newspaper with little interest in politics.

“Nothing gets fixed if we sit there and do nothing.”
– Andrew Breitbart

Andrew Breitbart was just one fired up citizen who got offended by politicians slinging manure at the wall, hoping enough would stick so they could win one battle. But when they chastised Judge Thomas, they not only lost the battle they alienated Andrew Breitbart so intensely he started a war against them.

The dichotomy is; it was not politics but the immorality of his own party that hit him below the belt. 

When the Democrats violated the rectitude and morality of his Jewish upbringing, it offended him so deeply it released the tiger from its cage. 

He not only went after them but he took on the entire system as well. Within a few years he had an army in his hit-squad.

“I gave the people a series of do-it-yourself demonstration pulpits and open conversation pits.”
– Andrew Breitbart

Dr. Martin Luther King told us, “I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” 

As America watches another eleventh-hour ambush by the left in the Senate Judiciary Committee, it’s easy to comprehend what drove Andrew Breitbart off the Left Coast cliff. 

Judge Brett Kavanaugh is getting a repeat performance from the same progressives who assassinated the character of Judge Thomas. 

Inventing decade’s old sexual misconduct allegations to discredit an honorable man for political gain has outraged citizens across our nation today. 

The progressive left is turning lawmaking into politics.

“When people hurl insults at you, their minds are closed. You can’t debate with them. You must fight back.”
– Andrew Breitbart

According to the Competitive Handbook on Debate, “No revision of truth is ever permitted during a debate.” 

In a complex society, healthy articulation of opinions is important. Those who fear criticism for speaking out always lose. Liberty relies on free speech. 

But shame on those who feel the way to win, especially in a judicial confirmation government committee, is to present tainted mistruths as fact.

Hoping a lie told often enough becomes a truth is the key elementary principle of Marxism.

Cicero wrote, “In times of war, the law falls silent.” 

Agree or disagree. Love him or hate him. All of us have learned something from Andrew Breitbart. 

Bad government and special interest corruption in our society will remain there until we fight back. 

If we continue to take these antics in the Senate Judiciary Committee without speaking up, they will never cease. 

The Judiciary is a place for law, not politics. This contaminates the process. Andrew Breitbart told this reporter:

“I love fighting for what I believe in. I love fighting for others. I love reporting stories the complex refuses to report on. And most of all I love my job and what I’m doing for America as well.”
– Andrew Breitbart, 1969-2012


Contributing Columnist William Haupt III is a retired professional journalist, author, and citizen legislator in California for over 40 years. He got his start working to approve California Proposition 13.

JUST WHEN YOU THOUGHT DEMS COULD NOT GO ANY LOWER - Avenatti: I Have Evidence That Kavanaugh Ran A Gang-Rape Ring


Is this credible? Hey, would a man who turned a porn star who reneged on a payoff into a paragon of civic virtue lie? 

Early this morning, Michael Avenatti publicly accused Brett Kavanaugh of running child-care centers in the 1980s where satanic abuse took place. Oh wait, wrong social panic!

This one’s almost as ridiculous (via Leah Barkoukis):

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh faced a storm of new sexual misconduct allegations Sunday after attorney Michael Avenatti said he had knowledge that Kavanaugh and high school friend Mark Judge targeted women with drugs and alcohol in order to “allow a ‘train’ of men to subsequently gang rape them.” …

In Avenatti’s email, a screenshot of which he posted to Twitter, the lawyer told Davis that he had “significant evidence of multiple house parties in the Washington D.C. area during the early 1980s” where Kavanaugh, Judge and others “would participate in the targeting of women with alcohol/drugs.”

Avenatti included a list of questions for Senate investigators to ask Kavanaugh, including: “Did you ever attend any house party during which a woman was gang raped or used for sex by multiple men?”

Avenatti issued another tweet in which he insisted that he decoded the gang-rape conspiracy from reading Kavanaugh’s yearbook. I wish I was kidding:


Brett Kavanaugh must also be asked about this entry in his yearbook: "FFFFFFFourth of July." We believe that this stands for: Find them, French them, Feel them, Finger them, F*ck them, Forget them. As well as the term "Devil's Triangle." Perhaps Sen. Grassley can ask him. #Basta


Gee, how did the FBI miss that in six background checks? 

Full disclosure: My yearbooks from high school have more than one inscription that reads, “May you have all your ups and downs in bed.” At the time it was adolescent wishful thinking, but now I’m pretty sure that disqualifies me for public service. Was that code for sexual assault, Mr. Morrissey?

It’s insane. It’s so ridiculous that one has to wonder whether Avenatti might inadvertently crash the whole anti-Kavanaugh project with the backlash.

The motives behind these attacks, and their increasingly unhinged quality, have become so painfully obvious that all of the claims will likely get wrapped up together in a blanket of absurdity.




By Peter Hasson & Joe Simonson | Contributor

Michael Avenatti, the attorney for porn star Stormy Daniels, threatened and emotionally abused his wife after they separated, she declared under oath in court filings The Daily Caller News Foundation reviewed.

In a sworn court declaration TheDCNF reviewed, Lisa Storie-Avenatti asked a California court to grant her exclusive use of their marital home after she said her husband threatened and emotionally abused her. Both parties now dispute this account, as they finalize their divorce.

Despite these recent denials, Storie-Avenatti alleged her husband threatened to call the police and get them both arrested, which would cause her to lose custody of their son and put him into the hands of the state’s child protective services.

Two days before that incident, Avenatti had called the police to demand entry into the home the couple used to share, court documents show. Avenatti called the police during that incident but challenged other details in Storie-Avenatti’s story, he confirmed to TheDCNF.

When asked for comment on Thursday, Storie-Avenatti denied Avenatti was ever abusive in an email to TheDCNF, apparently contradicting her sworn statement. Avenatti, labeled as “Baby” in her contacts, was copied on the email.

In court documents, however, Avenatti’s wife described him as emotionally abusive and lacking control over his anger — sharply contrasting the image of himself he has presented to the public while representing Daniels in her legal battles against President Donald Trump.

Despite the allegations she made in court, in her emailed statement, Storie-Avenatti described her husband as a “good man” to TheDCNF and portrayed her own allegations as having “no basis in reality.”

One of Avenatti’s strategies for winning over the public — and more importantly, the media —  has been “positioning himself as a feminist ally” in his legal battles against Trump, Vanity Fair noted in a May 17 article.

As he has entered the media spotlight, Avenatti has become a resistance hero of sorts. On Wednesday, West Hollywood Mayor John Duran proclaimed May 23 as “Stormy Daniels Day” in a ceremony Avenatti attended.

“Even when skepticism of straight, white alpha males is at an all-time high, women in America — and many men, too — have found themselves completely beguiled by Avenatti,” Vanity Fair raved.

Exactly five months before that Vanity Fair profile on his skincare routine and pricey outfits, Avenatti angrily berated and threatened his estranged wife outside the house they used to share, eventually calling the police on her, according to court documents.

On Dec. 17, 2017, Storie-Avenatti had offered for Avenatti to spend the day with their son, accompanied by a nanny, she recounted under oath in a Jan 3, 2018, declaration. (She had long been their son’s primary caregiver, as Avenatti was routinely absent and unreliable even before they separated, his mother told the court.)

Avenatti “took umbrage” at the stipulation and showed up outside the house in a fury that same day, she said in the declaration. Avenatti told TheDCNF on Thursday he had “to retrieve some of my belongings.” (The couple separated on Oct. 30, 2017, around which point Avenatti moved into a nearby luxury apartment, court documents show.)

Storie-Avenatti sent their young son upstairs with the nanny and confronted Avenatti outside the front door — at which point he “immediately started yelling at me to let him into the house and started to videotape me with his phone,” she recounted.

Avenatti “also threatened me that he would be staying at the house every night in the coming week,” she said.

During the dispute, Avenatti had brought with him his teenage daughter from his first marriage, who tried to hide as her father publicly berated his latest estranged wife, Storie-Avenatti recounted in her sworn declaration.

“I told [him] to stop making a scene and that he was scaring [his daughter], who was hiding behind a pillar,” she said. Avenatti retorted that he brought the girl as a “witness,” Storie-Avenatti told the court.

He “continued to yell at me and at some point must have called the police, who arrived. I heard [him] tell the police he wanted access to the house,” she said. “The police declined [his] request and later told me that this was going to be a nasty divorce.”

Avenatti challenged that description of the event in an email to TheDCNF on Thursday.

“The police arrived and informed me that I was correct that I should have access but stated they could not grant me access but if I wanted to force access, I could because I had every right to the home. I declined to do that because I did not want to escalate the situation,” he explained. “The police told me I was being more than reasonable and was the ‘calm’ one. The police declined to make a report despite my request that they do so.”

He also disputed he yelled or caused his daughter to hide behind a pillar — as Storie-Avenatti recounted in her sworn declaration. “I did not yell at her, and my daughter never ‘hid’ behind anything,” he said.

Two days after that incident, Storie-Avenatti met with Avenatti in a public place to discuss a Christmas “visitation schedule,” she told the court. It was at that meeting Avenatti allegedly threatened to make them both lose custody of their son.

“During our short meeting, [Avenatti] threatened he will ‘burn’ all of our money on our divorce case and that he will call the ‘cops’ again, causing us both to be arrested, which will, in turn, cause [our son] to be placed into protective custody,” Storie-Avenatti stated. (Avenatti called that anecdote “completely untrue.”)

That threat, her lawyers told the court, was further proof Avenatti “is angry and vindictive, and has no regard for emotional harm caused to his son, his daughter or to Lisa.”

Avenatti “is emotionally abusive, and it is harmful to [our son] and me for [Avenatti] to be staying with us in the same house; and he has his own residence where he has been staying since before October 2017,” she told the court.

“I have never neglected nor abused any of my children,” Avenatti said in a Jan 8. declaration five days later. His wife had kicked him out of the house and changed the locks, Avenatti claimed.

He denied his wife’s sworn version of events, in an email to TheDCNF on Thursday.

“I never subjected my wife or any other woman to any threats or emotional abuse, and any claim to the contrary is bogus,” he wrote. “My first wife of 13 years can confirm this. I have never been arrested or charged with anything, and I have no history of any domestic abuse. I have never had any incident where the police were called for alleged domestic abuse or anything I have done. Ever.”

He added: “There are a host of things I could disclose relating to Lisa, her habits and the circumstances around her filing, but I will decline to do so at this time, as she is the mother to my son and I do not think it is appropriate to malign her.”

Storie-Avenatti issued a similar statement on Thursday, saying she and Avenatti are “presently finalizing a divorce, and we ask for privacy for our sake and that of our son. ”

“To be clear, there was never any abuse, alleged or otherwise, in our relationship. I never feared for my safety or that of my son. Period. Michael has in the past been a loving and caring husband and is a loving and caring father.
I never called the police because I was never threatened with harm. I never sought to have him excluded from our home because I felt threatened or feared for my safety or that of my son,” she said.

“Further, he has paid all child support and spousal support. He is a good man. It appears you are trying to harm him and our family by publishing a defamatory story that has no basis in reality.”

TheDCNF asked Storie-Avenatti to clarify the apparent discrepancy between her sworn statement and her emailed statement, but she did not reply by press time.

On Saturday, Storie-Avenatti expressed her frustration with the divorce proceedings to Fox News.

“I need to be divorced; and if [Michael Avenatti] continues to paint the narrative, he can ignore our case!” she told Fox in a text message.

While her statement to TheDCNF suggests their upcoming split is on amicable terms, Storie-Avenatti made it clear to Fox it has been a difficult process.

“Everyone reports we are divorced. That does not help my goal to get a divorce,” she said. “Can you imagine divorcing him?”

Storie-Avenatti’s sudden reversal is the second time Avenatti has been accused of wrongdoing — only to have his accuser apparently retract their statement after TheDCNF reached out to Avenatti.

Dillanos Coffee CEO David Morris on May 8 accused Avenatti of owing him $160,000. Dillanos was a vendor for Avenatti’s coffee chain, Tully’s Coffee, but was forced to cut Avenatti off after never receiving payment, Morris said.

When TheDCNF reached out to Avenatti on May 10, he denied Morris’s accusation. Less than three hours later, Morris announced he had reached an agreement with Avenatti and deleted his accusation from social media. A spokesperson for the company told TheDCNF on May 10 that the company had reached an agreement with Avenatti personally.

Avenatti previously threatened to sue TheDCNF for reporting on serious allegations in his background, although he has yet to challenge a single fact in TheDCNF’s reporting. Journalists at several other outlets have since said Avenatti threatened or intimidated them for reporting on him.

After that threat, TheDCNF uncovered further ethically questionable behavior in Avenatti’s past. Avenatti’s company, a Washington court found, fired a woman for being pregnant.

Despite the court ordering Avenatti’s company to pay a $120,000 settlement, the woman has yet to receive any money.

Sunday, September 23, 2018

THE DEMOCRAT SMEAR CONTINUES: College classmate says Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at Yale party

A Yale University classmate of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has claimed that he exposed himself to her at a college party, the New Yorker magazine reported late Sunday.

The woman, Deborah Ramirez, has called on the FBI to investigate the alleged incident. The magazine's report, which is co-written by Pulitzer Prize winner Ronan Farrow, states that four Democratic senators have received information about Ramirez's allegation and at least two have begun investigating it.

The report was published days before Kavanaugh is to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee about an allegation of sexual assault against him dating to his days as a high school student in the early 1980s. The accuser in that case, Christine Blasey Ford, has agreed to go before the committee and tell her story.

In a statement obtained by Fox News, Kavanaugh described Ramirez's allegation as a "smear."

"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," Kavanaugh said. "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."

White House spokesperson Kerri Kupec said: "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 claimed Kavanaugh exposed himself to her while she was intoxicated during a drinking game in the 1983-84 academic year, when Kavanaugh was a freshman. She also claimed she inadvertently touched Kavanaugh's penis when she pushed him away and says the incident left her "embarrassed and ashamed and humiliated."

She also claimed another male student yelled "Brett Kavanaugh just put his penis in Debbie's face" and insisted that person used Kavanaugh's full name.

The report stated that the magazine had not corroborated that Kavanaugh was at the party in question. An anonymous male classmate said he was told that Kavanaugh had exposed himself to Ramirez within the following days.

Still another male classmate who Ramirez claims egged on Kavanaugh to expose himself to her denied any memory of the party in question. 

In addition, the magazine published a statement by six of Kavanaugh's classmates saying: "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."

The statement continued, "In addition, some of us knew Debbie long after Yale, and she never described this incident until Brett’s Supreme Court nomination was pending."

A female classmate who signed the statement told the New Yorker that Ramirez "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."

Ramirez admitted to the New Yorker that she does not fully remember the alleged incident because she had been drinking at the time. 

The magazine also reported that Ramirez spent six days "carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney" before telling the full version of her story.

Attorney Michael Avenatti, who represents adult film star Stormy Daniels in a lawsuit against President Trump, tweeted Sunday evening that he represented a woman "with credible information regarding Judge Kavanaugh and [high school friend] Mark Judge."

After the New Yorker story was published, Avenatti clarified that Ramirez is not his unnamed client, raising the possibility that more allegations against Kavanaugh will be forthcoming.

UPDATE: Ford attorneys promise Thursday hearing will occur, regardless of 'procedural and logistical issues'

Attorneys for Christine Ford, the California professor accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of committing sexual assault in high school, definitively vowed Sunday that Ford would appear at a Senate hearing Thursday morning despite unresolved "procedural and logistical issues."

After days of uncertainty, the move set the stage for a dramatic and pivotal day of testimony on Capitol Hill that could determine the fate of President Trump's second pick to the nation's highest court.

"We made important progress on our call this morning with Senate Judiciary Committee staff members," the attorneys, Debra Katz, Lisa Banks, and Michael Bromwich said in the statement. "We committed to moving forward with an open hearing on Thursday Sept 27 at 10:00 am."

Sources on Capitol Hill tell Fox News they are now preparing in earnest for the Thursday hearing, which is likely to push a confirmation vote on the Senate floor beyond October 1, the start of the next Supreme Court term.

The hearing had been in doubt amid a week of back-and-forth tussling between Senate Republicans and Ford's legal team, who disagreed on the ideal timing of the hearing, as well as who should testify first and whether outside lawyers should be allowed to ask questions.

But Ford's legal team said definitively on Sunday that those potential sticking points would not derail the hearing.

"Despite actual threats to her safety and her life, Dr. Ford believes it is important for Senators to hear directly from her about the sexual assault committed against her," the attorneys said. "She has agreed to move forward with a hearing even though the Committee has refused to subpoena Mark Judge. They have also refused to invite other witnesses who are essential for a fair hearing that arrives at the truth about the sexual assault.

"A number of important procedural and logistical issues remain unresolved, although they will not impede the hearing taking place," the attorneys added. "Among those issues is who on the Majority side will be asking the questions, whether senators or staff attorneys."

The attorneys concluded: "We were told no decision has been made on this important issue, even though various senators have been dismissive of her account and should have to shoulder their responsibility to ask her questions. Nor were we told when we would have that answer or answers to the other unresolved issues. We look forward to hearing back from the Majority staff as soon as possible on these important matters." 

Kavanaugh will reportedly testify after Ford, allowing him the opportunity to respond to her claims. According to Bloomberg News, Republicans also refused to accede to Ford's lawyers request that the Judiciary Committee subpoena Kavanaugh friend Mark Judge to testify.

Judge, who Ford has said was in the room when she was allegedly assaulted by Kavanaugh, had indicated he did not want to testify because he had nothing to add beyond his denial of any knowledge of the purported episode.

Republican senators had said it would be inappropriate for a witness to dictate who would be called.

Speaking on "Fox News Sunday," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a member of the Judiciary Committee, said that there would be two witnesses: Kavanaugh and Ford.

That would mark a change from the 1991 Judiciary Committee hearings into allegations by Anita Hill that she had been sexually harassed by then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas. Several witnesses testified in those nationally televised proceedings, which saw Thomas fervently deny the allegations that he compared to a "hi-tech lynching."

All of the individuals that Ford has said were at the house during the alleged assault -- including Kavanaugh,  Mark Judge,  classmate Patrick Smyth, and her own longtime friend, Leland Ingham Keyser -- have denied knowledge of the episode, under penalty of felony, in interviews with the Judiciary Committee.

Ford has said she does not recall who owned the house where the alleged attack occured, nor why there was a gathering there or exactly when the incident occured.

For their part, Democrats have repeatedly accused Republicans of pressuring Ford to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has said Ford, who lives in California and has received numerous death threats, shouldn’t “be rushed" in her decision of when to testify.

“Show some heart,” Feinstein said. “Wait until Dr. Ford feels that she can come before the committee.”

But Feinstein herself has come under fire from Republicans because she received a letter from Ford outlining her allegations on July 30, but only discussed them with other senators and federal authorities less than two weeks ago. Her disclosure was prompted by a leak describing the letter in The Intercept -- a leak that Republicans have charged was orchestrated by Democrats.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, in a letter last week, unloaded a torrent of criticism on Feinstein for delaying the disclosure, saying she had compromised Ford's anonymity and used a sexual assault allegation for political gain.

"I cannot overstate how disappointed I am," Grassley wrote.

On Sunday, Graham echoed that sentiment.

"I feel sorry for her," Graham told "Fox News Sunday," referring to Ford. "I think she's being used here. If she truly wanted to be anonymous, the person who brought this allegation to the public owes her an apology."

He added: ""I don’t know what Dr. Ford expected us to do with an anonymous letter. If she wanted to stay anonymous those who betrayed her need to apologize."

Fox News' Shannon Bream and Chad Pergram contributed to this report.


Photo: Leland Keyser is Democrat Bob Beckel’s ex-wife

Committee contacts Ford’s friend about party; ‘she has no recollection’ of it, lawyer says

By | Billings, Montana

As the Senate Judiciary Committee staff negotiates with attorneys for Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of a past sexual assault, over a potential hearing on Thursday, Republican staffers are working to interview those who may have information about the alleged incident.

CNN has learned that the committee has reached out to a longtime friend of Ford named Leland Ingham Keyser.

 “I understand that you have been identified as an individual who was in attendance at a party that occurred circa 1982 described in a recent Washington Post article,” a committee staffer wrote Keyser earlier this week.

On Saturday night, her lawyer, Howard Walsh, released a statement to CNN and the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“Simply put,” Walsh said, “Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.”

The lawyer acknowledged to CNN that Keyser is a lifelong friend of Ford’s.

Ford’s lawyer Debra Katz said in response to Keyser’s attorney’s statement that it makes sense that Keyser wouldn’t remember, because Ford has said she did not share her allegations “publicly or with anyone for years.”

“It’s not surprising that Ms Keyser has no recollection of the evening as they did not discuss it,” Katz said in a statement. “It’s also unremarkable that Ms. Keyser does not remember attending a specific gathering 30 years ago at which nothing of consequence happened to her. Dr. Ford of course will never forget this gathering because of what happened to her there.”

Keyser is the latest person alleged to be at the party to say she has no recollection of it.

White House spokesperson Kerri Kupec said of those who allegedly attended the party, “One week ago, Dr. Christine Ford claimed she was assaulted at a house party attended by four others. Since then, all four of these individuals have provided statements to the Senate Judiciary Committee denying any knowledge of the incident or even having attended such a party.”

The Washington Post reported late Saturday that it had talked to Keyser, who told the paper she believed Ford’s allegation.

Kavanaugh has vehemently denied the allegations, telling sources he was “flabbergasted” when he learned of them.

“This is a completely and totally false allegation,” he said after Ford came forward. “I have never done anything like what the accuser describes — to her or to anyone.”

In addition, two others have issued statements.

“I have no memory of this alleged incident,” said Mark Judge in a September 18 letter sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee. He said he did not recall the party and never saw Brett Kavanaugh act in the matter Ford describes.

In addition, Patrick J. Smyth issued a statement.

“I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as ‘PJ’ who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post,” Smyth said in his statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh.”

“Personally speaking, I have known Brett Kavanaugh since high school and I know him to be a person of great integrity, a great friend, and I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh towards women. To safeguard my own privacy and anonymity, I respectfully request that the Committee accept this statement in response to any inquiry the Committee may have.”