The Young Turks - ANOTHER Kavanaugh Accuser Steps Forward With New Allegations

Episode Date: September 27, 2018

A third woman from Brett Kavanaugh's school years has come forward and outlined her accusations in a sworn affidavit. Trump spent more time at the UN defending Kavanaugh and saying his accusers were all "false". Get exclusive access to our best content. http://tyt.com/GETACCESS Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. All right, welcome to the Young Turks. We've got a, as usual, an amazing show for you guys. And every day gets more unbelievable. New allegations against Judge Kavanaugh.

and they are horrific. So we're going to get to that in a minute. But I want you guys to know the hearings are tomorrow. They start at 10 a.m. Eastern, 7 o'clock Pacific, and we will cover all of the hearings every minute of it right here on t.com slash live. Don't miss any of it. I will be doing there in early on coverage. and John Idola, Ben Mangwoods, Anna, J.R., Brett Ehrlich, and attorney and legal analyst,

Adrian Lawrence, will also join us. And I think she has a very important perspective on that. And we'll be doing live analysis so you could watch the hearings and then get our analysis immediately during the breaks. So that's happening all day tomorrow. And obviously, if you're a member, you can catch all of that anytime you want, rather than having to watch it live. It's up to you either way, if you remember.

t-y-t.com slash join to become one. Speaking of membership, which gives you all of our shows, later tonight on Rebel Headquarters, Namiki Kans, coming and talking to us about a very important announcement that she has. She announced that on aggressive, progressive, yesterday, and then we're going to elaborate on it today, so please don't miss that. That's a great announcement, and all progressives should be psyched about it. And then later today, in this show, Trey Crowder, the liberal redneck, is going to join us, And that also ought to be a doozy.

All right, a lot to go here. So Anna, get us started. All right. The third Brett Kavanaugh accuser has identified herself and her accusations were outlined in a sworn affidavit that was released by attorney Michael Avanotti. Now, Michael Avinotti had basically foreshadowed this case. He said that there was a third accuser and that this accuser was credible. and based on her very detailed allegations and the fact that she claims that there are people

that she spoke to at the time that this incident occurred, it does appear that her accusations are at least credible and should be investigated. But with that said, let me give you the details. So this third accuser, her name is Julie Swetnik, publicly identified herself and alleged that Kavanaugh and others in the early 1980s spike the drinks of girls at high school parties with intoxicants to make it easier for them to be gang raped. So here is an exact quote from Swetnik. She says, I have a firm recollection of seeing boys lined up outside rooms at many of these parties waiting for their turn with a girl inside the room.

These boys included Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh. Now, the first accuser, Dr. Blasey Ford had mentioned that Mark Judge was also in the room when Brett Kavanaugh allegedly attempted to rape her. So he has now been named by two of the accusers. Also, in approximately 1982, I became the victim of one of these gang or train rapes where Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh were present. Now, the wording there is incredibly important because she never specifies specifically that they participated in the alleged gang rape. She says that they were present.

So I think that it's important for her to clear this up. And hopefully, she'll have an opportunity to testify about these allegations as well. She also says, during the incident, I was incapacitated without my consent and unable to fight off the boys raping me. I believe I was drugged with quailudes or something similar placed in what I was drinking. Also, she says shortly after the incident, I shared what had transpired with at least two other people. Okay. So, these are heavy, heavy charges. as heavy as it gets.

And so now what Anna has been emphasizing throughout the week becomes an inescapable conclusion. How could you not have the FBI investigate? Now, again, it's for an expanded background check that they have done in similar occasions before, as they did in the Clarence Thomas and Edia Hill situation. Because at this point, if these allegations are false, that is... If she made it up, as a lot of Republicans are charging now, it is the worst smear job that we've seen maybe ever. So if I'm Kavanaugh, we're not gonna investigate this outrageous, outrageous charge, and

we're just gonna let it stand, and then I'm gonna go on the court because you guys are gonna rush your vote. And then for then on, everybody's gonna think that I'm part of, that I'm a rapist, attempted rapist, gang rapist, et cetera. So you've got to clear his name if he didn't do it. And then of course, if he did do it, he shouldn't be anywhere. I mean, he should be in a court, but not on the Supreme Court. And it would be the worst decision we have ever made in regards to the Supreme Court to put

him on it. Because there's no, now it's become more binary. It's less, hey, did he do that at a, I don't know, they were all heavy, heavy charges. But the Ramirez one, there is a question of me. memory, et cetera. This one, she's fairly clear, but not completely clear, on very serious allegations. And you can't do that to the guy if he didn't do it. And you can't have him on the Supreme Court if he did it.

It's, to me, it's so stark. How could you go forward without more information? As I've said before, what makes me uncomfortable about this whole situation is that this is all going through the court of public opinion, as opposed to having. nonpartisan professionals look into it. And usually the response you get from those supporting the Trump administration, I'm talking about members of the base, not necessarily the politicians, is, well, the FBI doesn't do criminal investigations of rape.

But no one's asking for a criminal investigation, although I think an argument can be made that, you know, state prosecutors should look into this as well, because these are serious charges. But putting that aside, the FBI would investigate this specifically to see in the state. If these allegations have any piece of truth to them, so senators can make the right decision in either confirming him or not confirming him. If I were accused of anything like this and I knew I was innocent, I would be calling for the FBI to investigate it.

But instead, you have Republican senators, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee just flat out refusing to do it. They say, no, no, no, he's innocent, this is a smear campaign, and then they refuse to get the FBI involved. Why? Why? If he's innocent, you should get the FBI involved. You absolutely should want that to clear his name, but what are they afraid of?

So there's two things here that are really important. One, if you're applying for any job at any company, and three women came forward and said to your prospective employer, oh, by the way, he committed sexual assault against me, including an up to gang rape, your employer would pause before hiring you. At a bare minimum, if they're going to be fair to you, they would look into it and see are these wild allegations that are totally made up for some reason against this guy? Or do they have any chance of being true? What any rational employer wouldn't do is, I don't worry about it.

Who cares about rape allegations? Don't worry about it. Let's just hire the guy. And maybe later, it'll be a gigantic legal liability, but who cares? No employer in the country would do that. For what? One of the most important jobs in the country to put a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court?

It is now an argument you cannot make that we should rush one of the most important jobs with less checks than you would get if you were applying for a job at the local Walmart. Okay? So and then secondarily, if you're asking, but guys, the FBI thing's going to delay, we're past that. There's too many allegations. Are you really that? Are you really that concerned about the politics of this?

Like, is a political win more important than ensuring that the newest Supreme Court justice is not possibly a rapist? I mean, come on. Okay, so, okay, but if you're asking, but guys, what would that, and what could the FBI possibly find out? A lot. So they're not going to have a conclusion. The FBI does not convict anyone, and this is a background check, it's not even presenting

evidence in a trial, it's presenting evidence to people making the employment. decision. So what are the things that they could find out? Hey, Ms. Swetnik, who were the other people at the party? Who was, I mean, you are alleging a gang rape of yourself here. It's a super important charge. Do you have any idea who was involved? You say he is present. What does present mean? Was he at the party? Was he in line? Do you know if he participated? Those are really relevant questions. Can you name a single other person at the party? Then you go and see if they can corroborate. Was there such a party?

Was she added? Was Kavanaugh added? Did anyone else know about spiking the drinks? Those are, how do you make a decision without knowing those? Either way, I don't know how you could possibly know for sure, which unfortunately, by the way, yes, both sides are doing it. So the Republicans are absolutely sure he didn't do it, how I don't know. And yes, there are people on the left who say, I believe them, period.

And I get why they say that, but I don't think that's how this process works. Well, but to be fair to the Democratic senators, they might say, I believe her, but they're specifically calling for an FBI investigation. Now, after the third accuser came forward, and since these accusations are so hideous, some of them have called for the withdrawal of Kavanaugh as a Supreme Court nominee, but they are still emphasizing the importance of at least doing an investigation to figure out what's at the bottom of this, what's the truth. Let's figure this thing out. Also, I want to give you a little bit of background on Julie Swetnik as well, so you kind of get a sense of who she is.

So she apparently has multiple clearances to work for government jobs. So for instance, she had clearances for the Treasury Department, the U.S. Mint, IRS, State Department, and Justice Department, other government agencies as well. And I don't know why someone would put their face out there with false accusations, given how incredibly cruel Trump supporters and Senate judiciary members, particularly Republicans, have been toward women who have come forward. And by the way, one other thing, just to give you another piece of examples or another piece of evidence proving that they've been cruel.

After these allegations came up, Donald Trump just didn't care. And first issued a tweet, so I want to go to Graphic Nine and share that tweet with you. He says, Avanotti is a third-rate lawyer who is good at making false accusations like he did on me and like he is doing on Judge Brett Kavanaugh. So let's stop for a second. Avanotti did not make false accusations against Trump. Trump's own fix-it lawyer, former fix-it lawyer, Michael Cohen, admitted that he paid Stormy Daniels off after it was requested by Donald Trump. So where did he lie?

That's the very last thing I would say if I was Donald Trump. Because the charges against you that Avanadi talked about have proven to be 100% right. There's no one outside of you in the country claiming that you didn't sleep with Stormy Daniels. And now you even admit that you paid her hush money, but you claim it was because what? You felt like paying her hush money on things you didn't do, even your own supporters don't believe that. I don't think there's a single supporter of yours that believes that. Instead, they go, oh, wow, boy, way to sleep up with a porn star while your wife just had a kid.

That's like what a real man does. Okay, so those are your guys, but you can't claim Avanani made up stuff. He proved it to be totally right. So at the bare minimum, you should have enough intellect to not bring that issue up, but as usual, his own worst enemy. Well, he also issued a statement. You know, he's participating at a UN event, and he decided to bring this situation up, and here's what he had to say.

And hopefully over the next couple of days, it will be settled up and solved. And we will have a Supreme Court justice who will go down as one of our greatest ever. Hopefully he's going to be there for a long time. We, I think it's really working out very well. I really do. I think it's doing well. I think people are seeing what a disgrace these Democrat senators are. He just can't help himself.

Under what definition would this be doing very well? I mean, you can say, hey, I can't believe the Democrats have attacked this poor judge, et cetera. I wouldn't agree with you. And there's other problems with that. But you can say, hey, it's been a mess because of the Democrats. But who would say that the proceedings are going very well? I don't know, a single Republican or a single Democrat.

Who thinks they're going great, but he can't help them. The beautiful soft towels. The water was tremendously wet. These are going very well. There's three allegations of sexual assault, including gang rape. That is not going very well. Well, what I'm always curious about is, is there a line that Donald Trump can cross with his supporters, especially the women who voted for him and the women who continue

to support him? And we came across a few interviews that really stood out. to us. And the next video shows Trump supporters, women who don't really think these sexual assault allegations are that big of a deal. Groping a woman, which is, what is that? At 18, I mean, how many guys, you know, think that's no big deal? Even back then, it was, it's not a big deal. It doesn't just take away from his character and his job to do what he needs to do as a Supreme Court nominee. If he was, if he was pro-abortion, the liberals wouldn't be fighting this hard.

We're all sick and tired of hearing about the Kavanaugh thing because it's not supported by any facts or evidence whatsoever. Dr. Blasey Ford, who was the first accuser, alleged that the sexual assault took place when she was 15 years old. So it's not a big deal if a 15-year-old is groped by someone. So look, here's, I keep trying to, I don't know why in an attempt to be overly fair, telling conservatives an acceptable way to say things. For example, she could have said, hey, that stuff is terrible. I wouldn't want that happening to my daughters. But it did happen with some regularity back in the day.

And I'm glad it doesn't anymore. But we can't go back in time and judge the people within that context. That would be an intelligent way of responding to that if you wanted to defend them, which I do not, but she does, okay? So instead, she's like, what's the big deal? It's just groping. You've got young daughters right there. Don't put that message out.

But I actually want to touch on that a little bit because she does have daughters. And one of the talking points that you hear over and over again is, well, why is this coming up now? Why don't sexual assault victims come out and report it immediately? Well, can you imagine how difficult it would be if you were her daughter and you had just been groped or sexually assaulted and you know that this is the way your own mother thinks about the situation. Your own mother thinks it's not really that big of a deal. Who cares?

We're sick of hearing about it. Let's move on. I know I wouldn't feel comfortable going to my parents or talking to my mother if this is the way she genuinely feels about sexual assault. Like, the country doesn't take it seriously. We just don't. The Me Too movement happened, right? And we thought, oh, this is great, there's progress.

But I think that the nomination and, you know, the continued support for Brett Kavanaugh shows you that we don't really take it seriously. Because when political wins are on the line, that's really the number one thing that the people in positions of power genuinely care about. So now let me defend the country and further pile on to Republicans. So because it's not me doing it, it's not my opinion, it's the polling. A new NPR PBS NewsHour Merris poll is out, and my defense of the country is a third. 32% believe Ford, 26% believe Kavanaugh, and 42% are unsure who to believe.

I think that is exactly right. I think that I lean towards Ford based on the fact that I work in the news business, and we have looked at this in eight different ways, and I've got questions about the Ramirez story. I've got a lot of questions about the third person who just came out. I'm not saying she isn't telling the truth. I just have literally have questions about some of her claims, like to elaborate, right? So on Ford, though, she has corroboration. She's just, again, no motive.

I mean, it goes on and on. I have good reasons to believe that. But if you say you are unsure, that's a perfectly rational place to be in, why we keep saying over and over again that you should do an FBI investigation. On the other hand, a majority of Republicans, 54%, say that Kavanaugh should be confirmed. We need to talk about a relatively new show called Un-F-The-Republic, or UNFTR. As a Young Turks fan, you already know that the government, the media, and corporations are constantly peddling lies that serve the interests of the rich and powerful.

But now there's a podcast dedicated to unraveling those lies, debunking the conventional wisdom. In each episode of Un-B-The-Republic, or UNFTR, the host delves into a different historical episode or topic that's generally misunderstood or purposely obfuscated by the so-called powers that be. Featuring in-depth research, razor-sharp commentary, and just the right amount of vulgarity, the UNFTR podcast takes a sledgehammer to what you thought you knew about some of the nation's most sacred historical cows. But don't just take my word for it. The New York Times described UNFTR as consistently compelling and educational, aiming to challenge conventional wisdom and upend the historical narratives that were taught in school. For as the great philosopher Yoda once put it, You must unlearn what you have learned.

And that's true whether you're in Jedi training or you're uprooting and exposing all the propaganda and disinformation you've been fed over the course of your lifetime. So search for UNFDR in your podcast app today. and get ready to get informed, angered, and entertained, all at the same time. Regardless of whether Ford's allegations are true. Oh, my God. And remember, the allegations are not even groping. And I feel bad saying that because groping is bad enough.

The allegations are pinned her down, turned up the volume, had his friend turn up the volume on the radio, so no one could hear her scream, put his hand over her mouth and started taking her, ripping her clothes off while he was on top of her. 54% of Republicans think, nah, what's the big deal? Oh, God, that's terrifying. Because is that like either, yeah, I don't mind if you do an attempted rape as long as you agree with me politically, or I just think that's normal. And so that's normal in my experience, which then makes me afraid of, my God, you know,

as much as we talk about the Me Too movement, and this is what a lot of women say and emphasize for good reason, it's still the tip of the iceberg. The iceberg is 54% of Republicans, but also some significant percentage of the country, saying, why, is that a big deal? What was in their experience that made them think that an attempted rape like that, would not be a big deal. Let's take a break. When we come back, we will discuss the upcoming hearing involving Dr. Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh

and some of the evidence that they plan on using during their testimony. We'll be right back. All right, back on a young turks. A lot of you commenting on in the member section about your, like if people were applying for other jobs, right? So Gabby Marita says, let's take this out of politics. If Brett Kavanaugh were applying for a loan, a mortgage, his credit history had this many red flags pop up. He would immediately be declined. Stop. Do you know how fast you were going? I'm going to have to write you a ticket to my new movie,

The Naked Gun. Liam Neeson. Buy your tickets now. I get a free Tilly Dog. Chilly Dog, not included. The Naked Gun. Tickets on sale now. August 1st. And it would be up to him to correct any inconsistencies, not the bank. So that's an interesting analogy. Greg says, yes, have the FBI do an investigation. Hell, I had to go through a background investigation to become a rescue swimmer while in the Coast Guard. Okay. Yeah.

So a lower standard, apparently, for the Supreme Court. Ruth and her pets writes in, any ordinary person just wouldn't get hired. No one would even look into it. They would just say, lots of fishing to see, why risk it? Unfortunately, she's right. I don't know that that's the right thing to do, but that is what the overwhelming majority of employers would do. Oh, you have three allegations of massive sexual assault.

I'm done with it, just let's just get somebody else. They would never risk it. Yeah, just to add to these stories, my husband's currently going through a background investigation for a job, and it takes three months, and it is so extensive, it's incredible. And this is not for the Supreme Court, it's for a good job, don't get me wrong, but Why are we held at a higher standard for average jobs when this person could be the next Supreme Court justice? Yes, absolutely.

So one last thing here, opinionated rights in from the member's comment section, the same people who say that black people running from the cops deserve to be shot dead, have no problems that a Supreme Court nominee is running from law enforcement. So that's a great point. Well, today, why did he run? You know, maybe he was a danger. How about someone accused of three different sexual assaults? They could be a danger.

And for the people- And by the way, don't get any of us wrong, including the person who wrote that comment in. We don't think anybody should do anything like that. We're just pointing out the obvious, massive hypocrisy. And there's also the double standard regarding, oh, he was so young when this stuff happened, who cares. It's not indicative of who he is today. Those are typically the same people who make excuses for why they dig into the marijuana use of unarmed people who get shot and killed by cops. Yeah, so, yeah, that's a great, great point.

So, Judge Kavanaugh, he was young, and what difference does it make? Trayvon Martin. Well, he did smoke marijuana in junior high. And, of course, Trayvon was murdered. He was killed. He's dead. He was also wearing a hoodie, don't forget that. Yes, whereas Kavanaugh, how dare you look into his background at all?

He's up for one of the most important positions in the world. That makes no goddamn sense at all. Anyway, thank you members for writing with great comments. TYT.com slash join to become a member. What's next, Anna? All right. The Senate Judiciary Committee will be holding a hearing tomorrow involving both Dr. Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh.

And of course, this hearing is to hear their testimony regarding sexual assault allegations, attempted rape allegations. Now, at the moment, it's unclear whether or not the second accuser, Debbie Ramirez, or the third accuser, will be involved in this hearing. But what we do know, or at least what we've had some hints about, are the various pieces of evidence that they plan to bring to the table for this hearing. So first, there's Brett Kavanaugh's 1982 calendar. That's right, he kept his 1982 calendar, which is kind of amazing. When I first read the headline about this, I'm just going to be honest. I thought there's no way that this calendar is authentic. Who keeps their calendar from 1982?

But it does look authentic, to be fair. And when you look through it, it appears to just have mundane stuff. And the whole point of him bringing his calendar up is to make a point about how, you know, There's no party in question here that, you know, describes or goes along with what Dr. Blasey Ford described, right? No, this is nonsense. This is nonsense. Okay.

So look, you take any piece of data you like and make, you know, and they're all data points and we're all trying to figure this thing out. And there are some data points on, you know, Dr. Blasey's side or Ramirez's side where I go, Nah, that's not that persuasive either, right? But the calendar has the parties that were planned out ahead of time. Oh, we're going to go to the beach for this such and such person's party, right? It doesn't have every single party in the middle of the summer that people threw impromptu, and oftentimes when the parents weren't present because they were going to drink illegally.

Okay, the seniors might have been illegal, but everybody else would have been drinking illegally at the time. That's not the one you write down in your calendar that your parents can see. You write, hey, I'm going to Nicky's birthday party. You don't write, I'm going to John's party that you guys don't know about, where we're at a bare minimum going to drink very, very heavily. Right. Right. So I agree that piece of evidence is pretty weak. It's very likely that he wouldn't have put the date of that party down on the calendar.

Now, when it comes to Dr. Ford Blasey, some fascinating stuff has come up. So let's go to Graphic 18. So according to reporting, there will be four people who will basically testify, not testify during the hearing, but who have written in sworn affidavits that they were told about the sexual assault previously. So four people submitted these sworn affidavits to the Senate Judiciary Committee saying that Christine Blasey Ford previously told them about the incident. So Russell Ford is one of those individuals, and he is Blasey Ford's husband, and he writes,

She said that in high school she had been trapped in a room and physically restrained by one boy who was molesting her while another boy watched. She said she was eventually able to escape before she was raped, but that the experience was very traumatic because she felt like she had no control and was physically dominated. Now, there was another person involved in signing a sworn affidavit, and that's Keith Kogler. That's a close friend of Ford and her husband, close friend of a Ford and her husband. and he submitted a sworn affidavit saying he first learned of the alleged sexual assault in the summer of 2016. So he writes, while discussing the case of Brock Turner, Cogler said Ford told him she was assaulted in high school by a man who was now a federal judge in Washington, D.C., meaning Brett Kavanaugh. On June 29th, Cogler said Ford sent him an email saying the person who assaulted her in high school was the president's, quote, favorite for Scotis. And then he writes back to her, by the way, this is all via email, which is important, okay?

So he writes back to her and says, I remember you telling me about him, but don't remember his name. Do you mind telling me so I can read about him? And she writes back Brett Kavanaugh. There's another person, Rebecca White, a friend of Ford's who is also her neighbor. And she said that Ford first told her about the alleged assault in 2017. After she read a social media post, White wrote detailing her own experience with sexual assault. So let's pause for a second.

The timing's interesting there because remember, 2017, I think that's when the Me Too movement began. People started talking about their experiences, if I'm not mistaken. So that's probably why there was a social media post. And then here's what Rebecca White wrote. I was walking my dog and Christine was outside of her house. I stopped to speak with her. She then told me that when she was a young teen, she had been sexually assaulted by an older

I remember her telling or saying that her assailant was now a federal judge. And then there's one other person, but do you want to jump in before I get so forth? Yeah, so these are varying degrees of credibility. The one, I have one no reason to disbelieve any of them or Ford in this situation. It doesn't mean that Kavanaugh doesn't have a different recollection, et cetera. but when she writes after he is being considered for the Supreme Court, not after he was picked, but while he was being considered, if you're a Republican, you might say, well, at that point, she knows he might go on the Supreme Court, and that's why she might be talking about Kavana.

But remember, these go further back. So the ones that are in 2012, 2013, even 2016, et cetera, where she has no idea that he's going to be nominated for the Supreme Court and talks about this person. who had done this to her, has more and more credibility. And then I would ask you, if you're skeptical, why do you think she was doing that? About at that point, a random judge that, you know, she had no reason to believe would be nominated to the Supreme Court, that she just decided to pick a name out of a hat and go, that federal judge that I used to know, I'm going to start making things up about him in

the year 2012. That would seem awfully strange. Well, the fourth person talks about, you know, being informed about Ford's, Dr. Ford's sexual assault in 2013. So let me give you the details on that. Another longtime friend of Ford's, Adela Gildo Mazan, submitted the affidavit saying that Ford told her about the alleged assault in June of 2013 at a restaurant in Mountain View, California. In fact, she says she has a receipt from the restaurant for that day. So, listen, again, that's a detail that I don't find to be relevant, that she has a receipt from the restaurant.

What does that mean? It doesn't mean anything. Okay, so they went to a restaurant. I mean, it's at least corroborating evidence that they communicated that day. It doesn't necessarily prove what they were discussing, but she, remember. It doesn't even prove that it was her at the restaurant. So, anyway, if she used her credit card to pay, it could be proof. No, it proves that the person signing the affidavit was at the restaurant.

In their receipt, it doesn't say, you had lunch with this other person and I will name her. Okay, but when you're paying with your credit card for the meal, it says your name. It says the name of the person's credit card, the name that's on the credit card. It's totally irrelevant. Yeah. Okay, totally irrelevant. Focus on what is important, okay? So, look, we've now seen enough evidence that I think Kavanaugh has only one out and Dr.

Blasey vigorously disputes it, but she's not making this stuff up. She didn't make it up in 2013. She didn't make it up in 2012. You don't pick a random person out of thin air and start telling people you know and your therapist and your husband and your friends about this traumatic incident and it's this guy. What? Just in case? Are there people all across the country now making up things about somebody who might get appointed

in the year 2023? No, that's preposterous, right? So she clearly believes that this happened. She is genuine. and it's not a political hatchet job. I'm not talking about the other two, and they have different fact patterns. We're just talking about Christine Blasey Ford, okay? And so the only out that Kavanaugh really has is mistaken identity.

I'm sure that that happened. She believes that that happened to her, but it wasn't me. But saying it didn't happen or she's making it up, it just doesn't match the facts. It just doesn't. So there's one other part of this hearing that I want to touch on, and it's the prosecutor. It's the story that we talked about a little bit yesterday. We have more details today, so let's get to that. Senate Republicans in the Judiciary Committee had made it clear that they were planning on hiring a prosecutor, likely a female prosecutor,

in order to ask questions of Dr. Blasey Ford during the hearing. And there was some concern about who this individual would be. Senate Democrats were especially concerned because there was a lot of secrecy and a lack of transparency surrounding this person. It's also very unprecedented to get a professional prosecutor involved in these types of proceedings. And so since the Senate Judiciary Committee consists of Republican men and Republican men only on the Republican side, of course there are Democrats on the Democratic, I have women on the Democratic side, they say, hey, you know what, we just don't want to seem insensitive,

so we're going to have a woman ask the questions. That is the argument that they're making. But here's what we know about her. She's a sex crimes prosecutor from Arizona. Her name is Rachel Mitchell, and she will ask Ford questions on behalf of Republicans at Thursday's hearing. Mitchell is on leave as chief of the Special Victims Division in Maricopa County's Attorney's Office and has decades of experience as a prosecutor. She also identifies as a Republican, which I guess is fine. But I think it also makes it clear that they are planning on going after her. I mean, that's the fact that they're being secretive about all of this, the fact that they're,

you know, all of a sudden changing the terms of the hearing, which is something that Democrats have been complaining about, why are they doing all of this? The fact that they're refusing to get an FBI investigation involved to get to the bottom of the truth. I'm happy that Dr. Blasey Ford is testifying, but I also hope that she knows, and I hope everyone knows, that it doesn't appear to be a fair hearing as it stands right now. So the only part I object to, well, I object to two parts, and very significantly so, is them claiming that this is somehow a neutral person. No, no, she is a lifelong Republican who is going to question people on your behalf.

She's going to question Dr. Blasie, and I presumably Kavanaugh, but I'm not even clear about that, on behalf of Republican senators. So that's okay, that's fine. But just say it. Don't pretend like, oh, we found this neutral person out of nowhere who's just going to do these, just because she's an expert, just because, no. And it doesn't mean she's a lifelong Republican hack or donor, et cetera, in some, like Kavanaugh, for example, is a political apparatchik.

So when people like Chuck Todd say, you know, was he being a partisan warrior by going on Fox News, hey, snap out of it. The guy worked under Karl Rove. He worked as a political apparatchik his whole life. Kavanaugh is not neutral. He was picked because he's one of the least neutral people in the country. He's one of the most right-wing zealots in the country. So why are we pretending, right?

So but when they say, hey, Blasey Ford gave money to a Democrat once, I say don't hold it against her, is that she's some sort of apparatchik like Kavanaugh. Equally here, the prosecutor gave money to a Republican once, but it was a normal donation. It wasn't like Bloomberg or Koch brothers kind of donation. She's not an apparatchik. She appears to be a career prosecutor. Now, she's a career prosecutor in Maricopa County, worked with Sheriff Joe, presumably for a long, long time and didn't seem to object to that.

But one thing is absolutely clear, Republicans picked her to represent them because she is a Republican and on one side, not because she's neutral. So, yeah, sorry. So Republicans in the Senate Judiciary Committee keep arguing that they don't need to get the FBI involved because this isn't a criminal investigation. And the FBI doesn't do criminal investigations, even though. as we've said a billion times, the FBI would be doing a more extensive background check, not a criminal investigation.

But then simultaneously, they're turning this hearing into basically a criminal trial, right? Because they're getting this prosecutor involved to carry out their line of questioning. Why is that? And we know why it is. First of all, they know that she's experienced enough to, you know, paint this picture of her in her line of questioning. And since she's a woman, she's not going to have to deal with the same political consequences that people like Mitch McConnell, Orrin Hatch, other members within the Judiciary Committee

would be concerned about. It would cost them politically if they were vicious to Dr. Blasey Ford. And they want to be vicious. So instead, they're going to get a woman to be vicious for them. That's really what's at the heart of what's going on here with this prosecutor. Now, go ahead. So look, two things say about that. On the one hand, I don't get me wrong, at some point they got to ask her, hey, what happened?

And they got to ask about some of the details. So it's one thing to ask probing questions about that day because they don't have a choice. It's another thing to then to go further and say, all right, who else did you date and what kind of woman were you at the age of 15? Now if they go in that direction, I think that's wrong, whether the senators do it or the prosecutor do it, does it? But don't get me wrong, they got to find out what happened that day to the best of their ability. Now, on the other hand, it is incredible political cowardice on the part of the Republican

senators to basically hide behind Rachel Mitchell's skirt and say, hey, man, it's not me. It's not me. I got a woman. I got a woman. I got a woman to do it. So it's okay. I'm not guilty. No, just at least have the courage to represent yourself. They didn't elect her. They elected you to represent them. So, but then they don't have that. that kind of courage, so they're going to hide behind her. Well, before they grow some courage or develop some courage, they might want to learn Mitchell's name, especially when they're going to do press conferences and interviews. So here's Mitch McConnell discussing this prosecutor and also giving her a different title

during the conference. Take a look. You don't have women making decisions about Judge Kavanaugh. What message does that send to the American? We're looking for the truth here. I don't think because you happen to be a male, you're disqualification. from listening to the evidence, from listening to the evidence, and making a decision based upon the evidence.

As I said earlier, and I think you already know, we have hired a female assistant to go on staff and to ask these questions in a respectful and professional way. Female assistant, she's a prosecutor. Okay, so there's that, but I wanna- So look, a lot of people are outraged by that. I don't think we're, I don't know, I'll speak for myself. I'm not as outraged. It's just, it does speak to a frame of mind, right?

We've hired a female. At TYT, we frequently talk about all the ways that big tech companies are taking control of our online lives, constantly monitoring us and storing and selling our data. But that doesn't mean we have to let them. It's possible to stay anonymous online and hide your data from the prying eyes of big tech. And one of the best ways is with ExpressVPN. ExpressVPN hides your IP address, making your active ID, more difficult to trace and sell the advertisers.

ExpressVPN also encrypts 100% of your network data to protect you from eavesdroppers and cybercriminals. And it's also easy to install. A single mouse click protects all your devices. But listen, guys, this is important. ExpressVPN is rated number one by CNET and Wired magazine. So take back control of your life online and secure your data with a top VPN solution available, ExpressVPN.

And if you go to ExpressVPN.com slash TYT, you can get three extra months for free with this, exclusive link just for T-Y-T-F-T fans. That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N dot com slash T-YT. Check it out today. We know. You already said her name. Everybody knows. But it's okay. Female, female, female, right? And she's now an assistant. Just call her a career. But you know why my guess as to why he paused. You notice some pause there and went with assistant, which sounds a little degrading to some people, right? I'm not as, well, no, no, it's annoying, okay?

But I think that he didn't want to call her a prosecutor because they hired a prosecutor to go after her. So I think that's why he was like, a female assistant. Yeah, like, let me, I'm not outraged. In the context of what's going on right now, that is the least outrageous thing that's happening. I agree, agree. So then you have Senator John Kennedy

who can't even remember the prosecutor's name during an interview. I don't know that every committee member has given up the right to ask questions, but I know I intend to defer to, I can't remember the name of the prosecutor. Ms. Mitchell, I think, Ms. Mitchell, yes. You see the cryptkeeper? Is that, is that who that is? Okay, so look, to be fair to John Kennedy, he did once grill Trump judicial appointee.

in a terrific way. So I don't care, that's a separate thing. He remembered his talking points during that interview. He remembered them real well. Look, and again, in the context of what's going on, these are the least outrageous things that these Republican senators are doing. But with that said, understand what they're doing, understand what their motivations are, they're not getting a woman involved because they want to be sensitive to the assault victim

here, alleged assault victim. They're doing it because they want to hide behind her skirt and they don't want to lose political points by doing what they really want to do, which is hounding her, smearing her, probably asking her questions that are degrading. Look, the hearing's going to happen tomorrow. This is my speculation as to what's going to happen during the hearing, but I would love to take a bet and prove that my speculation is going to be right. By the way, we'll be covering the hearings.

TY.T.com, slash live, you'll get to watch all the hearings and our analysis live on it throughout the day tomorrow. One last thing on this, the Anita Hill hearings were 91, 27 years ago. At the time, every single person on the committee was a white male. And Mitch McConnell's right, just because your white male doesn't disqualify you from having opinions on this issue. But what would also be helpful to the American people having a variety of perspectives, especially a woman's perspective, in a situation like this, not exclusively, but it would be nice to have

some women in the room to ask questions as well. So will the Democrats have accomplished their end of it to some degree? There will be four Democratic senators who are women who will be participating because they're the ones on the Judiciary Committee, Feinstein, Kamala Harris, Herono from Hawaii, and Amy Klobuchar from Minnesota. The Republicans, all 11 are still white males. But no, that's not, that's at this point, I suppose, unsurprising, because that's that's, That is the great majority of their voters.

But this is the stunning fact. In the 202 year history of the Judiciary Committee in the United States Senate, the Republicans have never put a woman on that committee. Never, not once. There's 11 people on the committee and they rotate. And through 202 years, they just couldn't find a way to put a woman on a judiciary committee. Let's take a break. When we come back, Tommy Laren will share her stupidity with us once again in regard to these

allegations. We hope you're enjoying this free clip from the Young Turks. If you want to get the whole show and more exclusive content while supporting independent media, become a member at t.t.com slash join today. In the meantime, enjoy this free saying. Back on the Young Turks, Jank and Anna. you guys. So I'm going to go to the member section here. Third party time says, for those saying the Kavanaugh was young when he groped young girls, why don't any of these reporters ask them

if it's okay for him to lie about it now that he's an adult? Is it okay to have a Supreme Court full of people? We can't trust to be truthful about their past. That is a very good question. Because, yeah, I think it is a different thing to say, hey, come on, he was 17. And one to say, Now, come on, of course he's lying about it now. Why would he be truthful if he's going to go on the Supreme Court? And in fact, YNP7 then writes in, why are we even having conversation about sexual assault? This dude has blatantly lied to Congress on multiple occasions. Perjury should be enough to keep this guy off any court for life.

Now, if you haven't heard those stories, that's absolutely right. He lied about two things very, very clearly. A Republican Senate staffer, Manuel Miranda had accessed and downloaded thousands of computer files. belonging to Democratic senators in a confirmation hearing when he was appointed to be a judge at a lower level in the federal system, they asked about whether he had received those. He said no, he had not, very, very clearly. And it turns out we just found out an emails released this year that he did receive them. In fact, one of them said the word spying on it.

So clear, absolute lie. In another case, in the case of Charles Pickering, he was nominated to the Fifth Circuit in 2001. At the time, Kavanaugh was working with the Bush administration trying to confirm these judges. Did you work on that? No, I did not work on that case. Now we find out, in fact, he absolutely worked on that confirmation, and in fact was the primary person handling that nomination. Russ Feingold, who was one of the senators questioning him back then, wrote a piece saying Kavanaugh has literally never appeared before the Senate and not lied.

Every single time that he's come in front of the Senate in any of these hearings, he has lied. So I heard from the Republicans that perjury was enough to impeach someone. That's what they said about Bill Clinton. We have clear, overwhelming evidence of perjury by Kavanaugh, and they're just like, who cares? Who cares? Let's promote him to the Supreme Court. And now, of course, with these heavier charges at play, it also questions his credibility. Now, one last comment here, hashtag TYT Live, to tweet to us during the show when it's live 6 to 8 p.m.

Eastern. Strange Brute says, don't forget that Julie Swetnik's account of gang raping girls who are in intoxicated is corroborated by Judge's ex-girlfriend, who says in the New Yorker piece, the judge admitted to such activity. That's right. So now, read the New York piece, New Yorker piece. It has a little bit more nuanced than that, but the essence of it is very similar to that. She just, Judge, Mark Judge, and by the way, I've got to correct myself a couple of times

I slipped up. And said Mike. Mike, Judge, I feel terrible about that. So, if I was a Republican, I'd be like, no, it is Mike Judge. Totally. Okay, anyway, so it's Mark Judge's girlfriend who went out with him for three years and said, no, they talked about, he told me about trying to get girls in a state where they couldn't say no and several men being involved, et cetera.

So that does match the third accuser's fact pattern. Why isn't Mark Judge testifying? That's a great question. They don't want Mark Judge to testify. They don't want the FBI investigation to do an extensive background check. Why? Mark Judge backs up Kavanaugh's story. Why wouldn't you want them to testify?

It's very strange. And why would Christine Blasey Ford put Mark Judge a well-known friend and conservative, friend of Kavanaugh and a conservative writer to this day? Why would she put him in the room and make that part up if she was making it up for a political trick? And Republicans, why in God's green earth wouldn't you want a corroborating witness for Kavanaugh? unless you're afraid of what we might find out about what Mark Judge and Kavanaugh have done together. So all this does not add up to good news for Kavanaugh or the country, because the Republicans are to this point, still saying we're going to vote on Friday. Don't care.

We'll see if that happens. But right now to rush this vote with this amount of evidence in is crazy. All right. Tommy Laron. I don't typically like to talk about her on the show because she's a clown. but her recent comments on Fox News need to be addressed. Tommy Laren, a Fox News contributor, was on Fox News discussing the sexual assault allegations against Brett Kavanaugh, and she said pretty much what you would expect her to say,

but probably worse. Take a look. I live in Los Angeles. That's kind of the birthplace of this whole Me Too movement. It started out in what I believe is a great thing, which was bringing women out that had actually been assaulted. that we're coming out and saying, this happened to me, we've been quiet for too long, and then it turned ugly, then it turned to this. It turned into, ah, I can make some politically convenient allegations. I can ruin someone's life.

I can ruin someone's family, and we can do it all in the name of the Me Too movement. But really, it's Democrat driven, it's Hollywood driven. And I think the American people are really sick and tired of it. Okay, so she thought, hey, Me Too is a great movement. She loves mentioning that she lives in Los Angeles. I wish she didn't. You know, you love living in red states, don't you? So please move back.

But anyway, that's beside the point. Then she says it turned ugly. It only turned ugly, though, when it became a political liability for the Republican Party. That's when it became problematic. And by the way, you know what? If you're worried about it turning ugly and being used to smear people, the FBI should investigate these allegations. And clear Brett Kavanaugh's name. Don't you want that, Tommy Lerrin?

So I guess this is her way of saying, I liked it when I was. was about Harvey Weinstein, who was a Democratic donor, it started in L.A., clear reference to Harvey Weinstein. We should have just ended it there when it was nice and political for us. Now we find out all these Republicans have been doing it. Bill O'Reilly, Roger Ailes, Roy Moore, potentially Kavanaugh, and this is proven inconvenient for us. So all of a sudden, she's not as much into female empowerment or protection.

And so, who actually made it political? It was the alt-right that went after James Gunn, the director of Guardians of the Galaxy, and they bragged about it. They said, yeah, we use the Me Too movement to try to get him because we don't like what he was saying on Twitter about Trump. They said it. So they weaponized the Me Too movement. And they brag about it.

Roger Stone bragged about going after Al Franken before a conservative talk show host came out against Al Franken. And so, and you can go back further and further, Sam Cedar, good example. They try to weaponize a joke where he was going after a pedophile, attacking a pedophile, and pretended that somehow he was for the pedophile in a thing that made no sense whatsoever because they wanted to target Sam. Now, do you know how little they have to have on someone to only find one tweet and And one that doesn't, in fact, on the opposite side and you have to try to twist it.

And you're talking about politicizing the Me Too movement? That's what the right wing tried to do immediately, immediately and repeatedly. So please spare me your fake outrage. Aren't people exhausted with her? And maybe there's a possibility that, yes, there are cases where it was clearly politicized and there was malintent. But there's also a possibility that for the first time ever, women feel comfortable coming out with their accusations against people in positions of power.

Whether they be millionaire actors and actresses, mostly actors obviously, but you know, there have been some actresses that have been mentioned as well, or whether they're politicians and positions of power. And there have been Democrats and there have been Republicans. But if you thought that was worse, you haven't seen anything yet. Let's hear a little more from Tommy Laren. I personally choose to always believe the women in the circumstances. But how can you, as a woman, how can you say that just because we're women, we should always

be believed? You don't think that women are capable of lying. You don't think women are capable of scheming. I mean, you work for Hillary Clinton, so I'm guessing you know that. But you think we should just take women's word as gospel? That's infuriating to me as a woman. Because I don't look at other women and say, I'm just going to believe you because we have the same biological making. So I don't think you should believe someone simply because they're a woman.

However, I think that you should take it by a case-by-case basis. What are the accusations? what is the corroborating evidence, and is the other side willing to do an investigation? Republicans in the Senate will not allow the FBI to conduct a more thorough background check. Why is that? So if you're concerned about that, you don't want to just believe someone. But the other side of that is to just not believe them, right? I don't believe her or I do believe her.

But based on what? Why don't we get some more evidence and then get to the heart of the truth? They don't want that. And they never discussed that. That's the funny thing. All these pundits, all these people on the right, they never discuss the fact that Republicans don't want to investigate. They don't want to look into the facts of the story at all.

They don't want to figure out whether or not these accusations are true. And the right wing purposely twists what people on the left are saying to their advantage. Now, I believe that some people do categorically say, I believe the women no matter what. But I think that is a tiny minority. I think that what they're mainly saying is for so long society as a default has not believed women. Exactly.

And so they want to reverse that and say as a default, we should respect the stories that they're coming out with and their courage, et cetera. That doesn't mean that we should go into a court of law and go, okay, that's a woman, that's it she's obviously right and the guy who's wrong, let's move on with our lives. We don't need to trial. No one is saying that, okay? And so here we have said a thousand times, for God's sake, do a more thorough investigation. Because if Kamenaw didn't do it, then you've destroyed this guy's reputation unfairly.

If he did do it, he shouldn't be on the Supreme Court. That is the actual position that people hold. And it's the same thing they do with Black Lives Matter. They're saying that no other lives matter. No, they're not. They never said that. They never said that. What they're saying is black lives have not mattered in the past to law enforcement, unfortunately,

for the people in power in this country. And all they're asking for is for black lives to matter just like any other life matters. But that's what Tommy Lawrence in the business of doing, is twisting people's words and attacking them and being paid to be... She's being paid to do it. I mean, that's her whole thing. And it's worked out well for her and good for her. But just understand what you're doing, Tommy, because you are spreading this message

that, hey, you know what, if these sexual assault allegations come out, your first reaction should be, no, I don't think I really believe them. And I don't think that you'd want to be treated that way if you had allegations like this against someone in a position of power, you know? And you're spreading this virus that's been around for a long time, but you're helping to perpetuate it, that women are liars. They're liars. When they come forward, I mean, they're willing to come forward and be dragged through the mud

and smeared nonstop for what, for what? What is Dr. Blasey Ford getting out of this? What's Deborah Ramirez getting out of this? What's the third accuser, Swetnik, getting out of this? Yeah, and finally, she ironically says it's on Fox News, where many other female hosts also attacked feminism for year after year, decade after decade, and then came to find out that they needed feminism to protect them from the people who worked at Fox News. Yeah, all of a sudden, feminism was real important when they were getting sexually assaulted

by the executives and some of the hosts there. And then all of a sudden, they wanted their legal rights, and which I don't begrudge them, and I'm very glad they came forward. We support them. We supported women either way and throughout. And it doesn't mean that when you go to court, you have to be believed immediately. It means that you at least have to respect a woman coming forward and not automatically assume that she's lying.

If anyone should have learned that lesson, it's women at Fox News. all right we'll be right back thanks for listening to the full episode of the young turks support our work listen ad-free access members only bonus content and more by subscribing to apple podcasts at apple dot co slash t yt i'm your host jank huger and i'll see you soon