Respond to prefers-color-scheme dark in app web views

Follow section front redirects in Spectrum

Enable NLP source in PCS for load testing

Switch off the News Alerts Survey Widget when we have enough responses

Poll to determine if new LUF updates are available

Allows the winning A/B test variant to be turned on without Spectrum deployment

Show infinite scrolling sections in Assembler MultiView

Show option for NLP article summaries in Action Bar

A general feature flag for Recipe Features that aren't yet released

Feature flag for media team features that aren't yet released

Use new Orca video player for preroll plugin in Spectrum

Show the snow tracker (instead of the heat tracker) on Spectrum

In a pinch, the Nationals finally find some offense

The Capitals, a team in transition, know what they want this offseason

Is Pastis as good as our food critic thought? He sent spies to find out.

The Post endorses April McClain Delaney and Tom Royals for Maryland’s 6th District

On Press Freedom Day, little to celebrate for Hong Kong’s journalists

Young Georgians want to be part of Europe. Their government is in the way.

Biden honors distinguished Americans; Trump back in N.Y. court

Trump Media auditor charged by SEC with ‘massive fraud’

Google’s empire is massive. A judge will soon rule if it’s a monopoly.

Northern Gaza is in ‘full-blown famine,’ World Food Program leader says

Confident of victory over Ukraine, Russia exhibits Western war trophies

Journalism in India is under assault

Biden expands health insurance access for DACA recipients

The grinding familiarity of the jocks-vs.-hippies proxy fight

Teen grabs wheel when driver passes out and school bus veers into traffic

Cat climbed into Amazon return box, found alive 630 miles away

I learned to heal my sadness by cradling dying chickens 

Ask Amy: My boyfriend just confessed he’s almost $20,000 in debt

Miss Manners: Is it inappropriate to reach out to old girlfriends?

Carolyn Hax: Longtime friend won’t forgive being last-minute canceled for a guy

In photos: At least 39 dead as historic flooding hits southern Brazil

Riot police and over 2,000 arrests: A look at 2 weeks of campus protests

Israel’s offensive is destroying Gaza’s ability to grow its own food

What’s the best bus to New York? We tested 5 for comfort and value.

Adaptive equipment is making national parks more inclusive

You asked: Do I need a passport for my cruise?

The ‘Access Hollywood’ video cemented Trump’s air of invincibility

The New York Times, alone in its outrage over access to Biden

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF BRETT M. 
KAVANAUGH TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT, DAY 5, 
FOCUSING ON ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT

SPEAKERS: 
SEN. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, R-IOWA, CHAIRMAN

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, D-CALIF., RANKING MEMBER

WITNESSES: 
CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD, KAVANAUGH ACCUSER

JUDGE BRETT M. KAVANAUGH, NOMINATED TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF 
THE SUPREME COURT

[*] 
GRASSLEY: This morning we continue our hearing on the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to serve as associate justice on our Supreme Court. We will hear from two witnesses, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Judge Kavanaugh. Thanks, of course, to Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh for accepting our committee’s invitation to testify and also thank them for their volunteering to testify before we even invited.

GRASSLEY: Both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh have been through a terrible couple weeks. They and their families have received vile threats. What they have endured ought to be considered by all of us as unacceptable and a poor reflection on the state of civility in our democracy.

So I want to apologize to you both for the way you’ve been treated. And I intend, hopefully, for today’s hearing to be safe, comfortable and dignified for both of our witnesses. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort of a show of civility.

With that said, I lament that this hearing — how this hearing has come about.

On July the 9th, 2018, the president announced Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to serve on the Supreme Court. Judge Kavanaugh has served on the most important federal appellate court for 12 years. Before that, he held some of the most sensitive positions in the federal government. The president added Judge Kavanaugh to his short list of Supreme Court more than nine months ago, in November 2017.

GRASSLEY: As part of judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court, the FBI conducted its sixth full field background investigation of Judge Kavanaugh since 1993, 25 years ago. Nowhere in any of these six FBI reports, which committee investigators have reviewed on a bipartisan basis, was there a whiff of any issue — any issue at all related in any way to inappropriate sexual behavior.

Dr. Ford first raised her allegations in a secret letter to the ranking member nearly two months ago in July. This letter was secret from July 30th, September 13th to — no, July 30th until September 13th when I first heard about it.

The ranking member took no action. The letter wasn’t shared with me or colleagues or my staff. These allegations could have been investigated in a way that maintained the confidentiality that Dr. Ford requested.

Before his hearing, Judge Kavanaugh met privately with 65 senators, including the ranking member. But the ranking member didn’t ask Judge Kavanaugh about the allegations when she met with him privately in August.

The Senate Judiciary Committee held its four-day public hearing from September 4th to September 7th. Judge Kavanaugh testified for more than 32 hours in public. We held a closed session for members to ask sensitive on that — on the last evening, which the ranking member did not attend.

Judge Kavanaugh answered nearly 1,300 written questions submitted by senators after the hearing, more than all prior Supreme Court nominees.

Throughout this period, we did not know about the ranking member’s secret evidence.

Then, only at an 11th hour, on the eve of Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote, did the ranking member refer the allegations to the FBI. And then, sadly, the allegations were leaked to the press. And that’s where Dr. Ford was mistreated.

This is a shameful way to treat our witness, who insisted on confidentiality, and — and, of course, Judge Kavanaugh, who has had to address these allegations in the midst of a media circus.

When I received Dr. Ford’s letter on September the 13th, my staff and I recognized the seriousness of these allegations and immediately began our committee’s investigation, consistent with the way the committee has handled such allegations in the past.

Every step of the way the Democratic side refused to participate in what should have been a bipartisan investigation. And as far as I know on all of our judgeships throughout at least the last four years — or three years, that’s been the way it’s been handled.

After Dr. Ford’s identity became public, my staff contacted all the individuals she said attended the 1982 party described in the Washington Post article.

Judge Kavanaugh immediately submitted to an interview under penalty of felony for any knowingly false statements. He denied the allegations categorically.

GRASSLEY: Democratic staff was invited to participate and could have asked any questions they wanted to, but they declined. Which leads me then to wonder: If they’re really concerned with going to the truth, why wouldn’t you want to talk to the accused?

The process and procedure is what the committee always does when we receive allegations of wrongdoing.

My staff reached out to other individuals allegedly at the party: Mark Judge, Patrick Smyth, Leland Keyser. All three submitted statements to the Senate under — under penalty of felony, denying any knowledge of the events described by Dr. Ford.

Dr. Ford’s lifelong friend, Dr. — Miss Keyser, stated she doesn’t know Judge Kavanaugh and doesn’t recall ever attending a party with him.

My staff made repeated requests to interview Dr. Ford during the past 11 days, even volunteering to fly to California to take her testimony, but her attorneys refused to prevent — present her allegations to Congress. I never — I nevertheless honored her request for a public hearing, so Dr. Ford today has the opportunity to prevent (sic) her allegations under oath.

As you can see, the Judiciary Committee was able to conduct thorough investigations into allegation — thorough investigations into allegations.

Some of my colleagues, consistent with their stated desires to obstruct Kavanaugh’s nomination by any means precisely — by any means necessary, pushed for FBI investigations into the allegations. But I have no authority to force the executive branch agency to conduct an investigation into a matter it considers to be closed. Moreover, once the allegations become — became public, it was easy to identify all the alleged witnesses and conduct our own investigations.

Contrary to what the public has been led to believe, the FBI doesn’t perform any credibility assessments or verify the truth of any events in these background investigations.

I’ll quote then-Chairman Joe Biden during Justice Thomas’ confirmation hearing. This is what Senator Biden said, quote, “The next person who refers to an FBI report as being worth anything obviously doesn’t understand anything. The FBI explicitly does not, in this or any other case, reach a conclusion, period. They say he — he said, she said, they said, period. So when people wave an FBI report before you, understand, they do not — they do not — they do not reach conclusions. They do not make recommendations,” end of Senator Biden’s quote.

The FBI provided us with the allegations. Now it’s up to the Senate to assess their credibility. Which brings us to this very time.

I look forward to a fair and respectful hearing. That’s what we promised Dr. Ford.

Some of my colleagues have complained about the fact that an expert on this side is — investigating sex crimes will be questioning the witness. I see no basis for complaint other than just playing politics.

GRASSLEY: The testimony we will hear today concerns allegations of sexual assault; very serious allegations. This is an incredibly complex and sensitive subject to discuss. It is not an easy one to discuss. That is why the senators on this side of the dais believe an expert who has deep experience and training in interviewing victims of sexual assault and investigating sexual assault alleged — allegations should be asking questions.

This will be in stark contrast to the grandstanding and chaos that we saw from the other side during the previous four days in this hearing process.

I can think of no one better equipped to question the witnesses than Rachel Mitchell. Ms. Mitchell is a career prosecutor, civil servant, with decades of experience investigating and prosecuting sex crimes. She has dedicated her career to seeking justice for survivors of sex-related felonies.

Most recently, Rachel was a division chief of the Special Victims Division, Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, which prosecutes sex crimes and family violence.

Then-Democratic Senator — Governor Janet Napolitano previously recognized her as the outstanding Arizona sexual assault prosecutor of the year. And she has spent years instructing prosecutors, detectives and child protection workers on how to properly interview victims of sexual assault and abuse.

With her aid, I look forward to a fair and productive hearing.

I understand that there are two other public allegations. Today’s hearing was scheduled to — in close consultation with Dr. Ford’s attorneys, and her testimony will be the subject of this hearing.

We’ve been trying to investigate other allegations. At this time, we have not had cooperation from attorneys representing other clients, and they have made no attempt to substantiate their claims.

My staff has tried to secure testimony and evidence from attorneys for both Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnick. My staff made eight requests — yes, eight requests — for evidence from attorneys for Ms. — Ms. Ramirez, and six requests for evidence for (sic) attorneys for Ms. Swetnick. Neither attorney has made their clients available for interview. The committee can’t do an investigation if attorneys are stonewalling.

I hope you all understand that we have attempted to seek additional information, as we do a lot of times when there are holes in what we call the B.I. reports.

Additionally, all the witnesses should know — by — when I say “all the witnesses,” I mean Dr. Ford and I mean Judge Kavanaugh — all the witnesses should know that they have the right under Senate Rule 26.5 to ask that the committee go into closed session if a question requires an answer that is a clear invasion of their right to privacy.

If either Dr. Ford or Judge Kavanaugh feel that Senate Rule 26.5 ought to be involved, they should simply say so.

FEINSTEIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I’ll make just a brief comment on your references to me.

Yes, I did receive a letter from Dr. Ford. It was conveyed to me by a member of Congress, Anna Eshoo.

The next day, I called Dr. Ford. We spoke on the phone. She reiterated that she wanted this held confidential. And I held it confidential, up to a point where the witness was willing to come forward.

FEINSTEIN: And I think as I make my remarks, perhaps you’ll see why. Because how women are treated in the United States, with this kind of concern, is really wanting a lot of reform. And I’ll get to that for a minute.

But in the meantime, good morning, Dr. Ford. Thank you for coming forward and being willing to share your story with us. I know this wasn’t easy for you.

But before you get to your testimony — and the chairman chose not to do this — I think it’s important to make sure you’re properly introduced. And I have to…

GRASSLEY: By the way, I was going to introduce her. But if you want to introduce her, I’ll be glad to have you do that.

But I want you to know, I didn’t forget to do it, because I would do that just as she was about to speak.

I have to say, when I saw your C.V., I was extremely impressed. You have a bachelor’s degree from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; two master’s degrees, one from Stanford and one from Pepperdine; and a Ph.D. from the University of Southern California, better known to Senator Harris and I as USC.

You are a professor affiliated with both Stanford University and Palo Alto University. You have published over 65 peer-reviewed articles and have received numerous awards for your work and research.

And as if that were not enough, you are a wife, a mother of two sons and a constituent from California.

So I am very grateful to you for your strength and your bravery in coming forward. I know it’s hard.

But before I turn it over, I want to say something about what is to be discussed today and where we are as a country.

Sexual violence is a serious problem and one that largely goes unseen. In the United States it’s estimated by the Centers for Disease Control one in three women and one in six men will experience some form of sexual violence in their lifetime.

According to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network, 60 percent of sexual assaults go unreported. In addition, when survivors do report their assaults, it’s often years later due to the trauma they suffered and fearing their stories will not be believed.

Last week I received a letter from a 60-year-old California constituent who told me that she survived an attempted rape at age 17. She described as being terrified and embarrassed. She never told a soul until much later in life. The assault stayed with her for 43 years.

I think it’s important to remember these realities as we hear from Dr. Ford about her experience.

There’s been a great deal of public discussion about the #MeToo movement today versus the Year of the Woman almost 27 years ago. But while young women are standing up and saying “No more,” our institutions have not progressed in how they treat women who come forward. Too often, women’s memories and credibility come under assault. In essence, they are put on trial and forced to defend themselves, and often revictimized in the process.

FEINSTEIN: Twenty-seven years ago, I was walking through an airport when I saw a large group of people gathered around a TV to listen to Anita Hill tell her story. What I saw was an attractive woman in a blue suit before an all-male Judiciary Committee, speaking of her experience of sexual harassment. She was treated badly, accused of lying, attacked, and her credibility put to the test throughout the process.

Today, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford has come forward to tell her story of being assaulted and fearing for her life when she was a teenager.

Initially, as I said, Dr. Ford did not want to make her story public. Then within 36 hours of coming forward, Republicans scheduled a hearing without talking to her or even inviting her to testify. She was told she had to show up for the — or the committee would move forward with a vote. It took a public outcry for the — from the majority — excuse me — for the majority to back down and give her even a few days to come before the committee.

Republicans also scheduled this hearing with Dr. Ford without having her allegations investigated by the FBI. In 1991, Anita Hill’s allegations were reviewed by the FBI, as is the normal process and squarely within its jurisdiction. However, despite repeated requests, President Trump and the Republicans have refused to take this routine step and direct the FBI to conduct an impartial investigation. This would clearly be the best way to ensure a fair process to both Judge Kavanaugh and to Dr. Ford.

In 1991, the Senate heard from 22 witnesses over three days. Today, while rejecting an FBI investigation, Republicans are refusing to hear testimony from any other witness, including Mark Judge, who Dr. Ford identified as being in the room when the attack took place. And we believe Judge should be subpoenaed so the committee can hear from him directly.

Republicans have also refused to call anyone who could speak to the evidence that would support or refute Dr. Ford’s claim, and not one witness who could address credibility and character of either Ford or Kavanaugh has been called.

What I find most inexcusable is this rush to judgment, the unwillingness to take these kinds of allegations at face value and look at them for what they are: a real question of character for someone who is asking for a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court.

In 1991, Republicans belittled Professor Hill’s experience, saying, and I quote, “It won’t make a bit of difference in the outcome,” end quote, and the burden of proof was on Professor Hill.

Today our Republican colleagues are saying, “This is a hiccup,” “Dr. Ford is mixed up,” and declaring, “I’ll listen to the lady, but we’re going to bring this to a close.”

What’s worse, many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have also made it clear that no matter what happens today, the Senate will plow right through and ensure Judge Kavanaugh would be elevated within a week.

Transcript courtesy of Bloomberg Government. For additional transcripts, policy coverage and legislative tracking, visit <a href="https://bgov.com">www.bgov.com</a>

Transcript courtesy of Bloomberg Government

The Washington Post

Climate

Education

Health

Innovations

Investigations

National Security

Obituaries

Science

National

prism://prism.query/site-articles-only,/national

The Washington Post's national news coverage. Get the latest national news, featuring national security, science and the courts. Read breaking national news headlines from across the U.S.