The Latest: Demonstrators chant, 'We believe Christine Ford'




 

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Latest on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and a woman who accuses him of sexually assaulting her decades ago (all times local):

10:10 a.m.

Demonstrators have congregated in a Senate office building to protest Republicans' handling of the sexual-assault accusation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

A group of roughly 100 people marched to the office of Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley on Thursday for a sit-in, some with fists raised.

The Iowa Republican senator plans a hearing on Monday for testimony from Kavanaugh and accuser Christine Blasey Ford, if she appears. Ford and Democrats want the FBI to investigate her allegations Kavanaugh assaulted her three decades ago, but Republicans are refusing.

The demonstrators chanted, "We believe Anita Hill! We believe Christine Ford!" Some told Grassley aides they themselves have been victims of harassment.

Hill is the law professor who during the Senate's 1991 consideration of Clarence Thomas' Supreme Court nomination accused him of sexual harassment.

Thomas and Kavanaugh have denied the accusations against them.

___

12:15 a.m.

Republicans are warning that time is running out for Brett Kavanaugh's accuser to tell Congress about her claim that he sexually assaulted her when both were teenagers.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley says his panel still plans a Monday morning hearing that Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford are invited to attend.

Grassley has told Ford's attorneys that the panel is giving the California psychology professor until 10 a.m. Friday to submit a biography and prepared statement "if she intends to testify" Monday.

It remains unclear whether Ford will attend or if the hearing will occur without her.

A statement by a Ford attorney, Lisa Banks, says Grassley's plan to call just two witnesses, Kavanaugh and Ford, "is not a fair or good faith investigation."

COMMENTS

More Related News

Joe Scarborough Goes After Donald Trump, GOP For
Joe Scarborough Goes After Donald Trump, GOP For 'Pathetic' Silence On Alleged Terror Plot

Scarborough, the co-host of MSNBC's "Morning Joe," was reportedly one of thepublic figures white nationalist Christopher Paul Hasson researched whileplanning an attack

War memorial or religious symbol? Cross fight reaches U.S. high court
War memorial or religious symbol? Cross fight reaches U.S. high court
  • US
  • 2019-02-22 12:42:06Z

There was nothing about it that made me think it was anything other than a Christian cross," Edwords, 70, said in an interview. Edwords and two other plaintiffs filed a 2014 lawsuit challenging the cross as a violation of the U.S. Constitution's Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from establishing an official religion and bars governmental actions favoring one religion over another. While the Establishment Clause's scope is a matter of dispute, most Supreme Court experts predict the challenge to the Peace Cross will fail, with the justices potentially setting a new precedent allowing greater government involvement in religious expression.

Rep. Jim Jordan takes aim at Democratic lawmaker Adam Schiff
Rep. Jim Jordan takes aim at Democratic lawmaker Adam Schiff

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) discusses how former FBI Director Andrew McCabe said that the DOJ discussed using the 25th Amendment to remove President Trump from office, the upcoming release of special counsel Robert Mueller's final report and whether Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) should recuse himself from the Russia probe.

Does a 40-foot Latin cross honoring World War I veterans violate the Constitution? The Supreme Court will decide.
Does a 40-foot Latin cross honoring World War I veterans violate the Constitution? The Supreme Court will decide.

The Supreme Court considers whether a Latin cross to honor World War I dead violates the First Amendment.

SCOTUS Cracks Down on Civil Asset Forfeiture
SCOTUS Cracks Down on Civil Asset Forfeiture

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Wednesday that state and local governments are not exempt from the Constitutional prohibition against imposing "excessive fines" on citizens, significantly constraining the ability of law enforcement to seize the property of criminal suspects.Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for eight of the nine justices, argued that state and local governments unconstrained by the Eighth Amendment's excessive-fines clause are likely to abuse their power."For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history: Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liberties," Ginsburg wrote. "Excessive fines...

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *

Cancel reply

Comments

Top News: Latin America

facebook
Hit "Like"
Don't miss any important news
Thanks, you don't need to show me this anymore.