Peace for the World

Peace for the World
First democratic leader of Justice the Godfather of the Sri Lankan Tamil Struggle: Honourable Samuel James Veluppillai Chelvanayakam

Friday, September 28, 2018

Michigan professor stands firm despite Israel lobby attacks

Graffiti on the Israeli-built wall dividing the occupied West Bank city of Bethlehem promotes the BDS — boycott, divestment and sanctions — movement.Ryan Rodrick BeilerActiveStills

Nora Barrows-Friedman-27 September 2018
A professor has received death threats after rescinding an offer to write a recommendation for a student who wished to participate in a study abroad in Israel program.
John Cheney-Lippold, who researches privacy and digital media at the University of Michigan, said he declined to write the recommendation because he supports the Palestinian call for an academic boycott of Israeli institutions.
“I wouldn’t cross a union picket line and I can’t cross this one,” he said.
Israel lobby groups charge that Cheney-Lippold’s choice is an act of discrimination and anti-Semitism.
Cheney-Lippold also “received threats that he’ll be scooped up off the street and thrown out of a helicopter, like military juntas did to leftists in South America during the dirty war,” said Radhika Sainath of civil rights group Palestine Legal, who is advising the professor.
“He received a threat that he’ll be gunned down or blown up while walking down the street,” she told The Electronic Intifada, adding that it has taken a physical and emotional toll on him.
The university’s president, Mark Schlissel, issued a statement last week condemning Cheney-Lippold’s position and reiterating that the administration “strongly opposes a boycott of Israeli academic institutions.”
The Palestinian-led boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign has called on academics around the world to shun links with Israeli institutions that are complicit in Israel’s violations of Palestinian rights through colonizing occupied Palestinian land, supporting Israeli military assaults on Gaza, extensive participation in weapons research and discrimination.
Schlissel admonished the professor for allowing the interference of “personal views and politics,” but has not yet commented on the death threats Cheney-Lippold has received, nor indicated that the university will investigate the threats and protect him.
The Electronic Intifada asked the university about the president’s planned response to the threats. A spokesperson replied that “as a matter of policy, we do not discuss personnel matter publicly.”
The president has previously defended advocacy of political views on campus.
In 2016, Schlissel defended Palestinian rights activists against accusations that a protest against Israeli policies – held on the same day as a Jewish holiday – was an affront to Jewish students.
Schlissel told the campus newspaper at the time that the Palestinian rights activists “did what we want advocacy groups to do, and to me, they were advocating a political point of view.”
In an apparent effort by the university to appease Israel advocates, an advisory committee declared on Tuesday that “a student’s merit” must be “the primary guide for determining how and when to provide letters of recommendation.”

Propaganda effort

The study abroad in Israel programs are part of an Israeli propaganda effort “designed to give international students a ‘positive experience’ of Israel, whitewashing its occupation and denial of Palestinian rights,” according to the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI).
They also violate equal rights clauses because Israel regularly denies entry to persons because of their Arab, Middle Eastern, or Muslim ancestry.
Israel’s racial profiling has a “discriminatory impact on students participating in educational programs,” while the 2017 passage of its anti-BDS law “means that US students could be prohibited entry into the country for an act of political expression that is fully protected under the US Constitution,” warned the US Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (USACBI).
The group recently launched a call to students and educators not to support or participate in Israel study abroad programs.
Students Allied for Freedom and Equality (SAFE) at the University of Michigan, which led a successful divestment resolution to probe Israel investments in 2017, says its members “support and affirm Professor John Cheney-Lippold’s right to boycott Israel.”
To punish professor Cheney-Lippold “for his actions would curtail his own academic agency,” the students say.
They add that “whatever inconveniences” the student may face in securing a recommendation letter, she “will undoubtedly be able to visit, study and work in the country” while “Palestinian students and their allies continue to be blacklisted, targeted and exiled from their home country for their identities.”
“Palestinian students do not have the privilege of going back to Palestine, much less studying abroad. Where is the concern for their educational opportunities?” the students ask.
Notably, despite university president Schlissel’s condemnation of Cheney-Lippold’s decision, it is already University of Michigan policy to discourage students and faculty from traveling to Israel.
The university has issued a warning that travel there “for university purposes is unadvisable due to a significant level of health, safety or security risks.” Travel to Israel is still permitted however as long as students and faculty follow certain precautionary guidelines.
But the university has issued an even more severe “restriction” on travel to the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip – which means that undergraduates are completely prohibited from traveling there for university work.
Graduates students and faculty may only go to those territories under strict conditions.
While listing numerous study abroad programs in Israel, the University of Michigan offers none in Palestinian universities.
This means, in effect, that Israel – the occupying power – retains the benefit and privilege of academic links with the University of Michigan, while Palestinian universities under Israeli military occupation are denied such ties.

Silencing campaign

Along with Schlissel’s remarks, a member of the university’s governing body also labeled the professor’s decision “anti-Semitic” and claimed his choice not to support the student’s “educational aspirations” to study in Tel Aviv went against the university’s values.
The condemnations from university officials echoed those of major Israel lobby groups intent on thwarting Palestinian rights campaigns on US campuses.
Nearly 60 anti-Palestinian organizations, right-wing watchdogs and Israel propaganda groups, including the Amcha InitiativeStandWithUs, the Lawfare Project and the Simon Wiesenthal Center, have called for Cheney-Lippold to be sanctioned “to the fullest extent of university policy” for alleged “discriminatory behavior.”
While the groups conceded that members of faculty “have the right to express public support for an academic boycott of Israel,” they say that faculty who “go as far as implementing” the boycott have “abrogated” their professional responsibility toward students’ academic welfare.
The director of the Endowment for Middle East Truth, an Israel lobby organization known for its role in perpetuating anti-Muslim propaganda, also called Cheney-Lippold’s decision not to write the letter “simply an anti-Semitic act” that was “discriminatory” against Jewish and pro-Israel students.
The executive director of Club Z, an organization that promotes Zionism, Israel’s state ideology, among teenagers, also claimed Cheney-Lippold’s choice was “anti-Semitic” because the student’s destination was Israel.
Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, a right-wing Israel lobby group that masquerades as a civil rights organization, said that Cheney-Lippold’s decision was “not acceptable” and accused the professor of victimizing the student with his “political bias.”
Greenblatt also called on the university to publicly condemn the academic boycott of Israel – something its president has already done.
Accusing professors of anti-Semitism and discrimination against Jewish students when no actual anti-Jewish bigotry has taken place is hardly a new tactic, but the Trump administration has broadened a way Israel advocates can use such accusations to shut down activism for Palestinian rights.
Kenneth Marcus, a longtime Israel lobbyist who now leads the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, recently announced to the Zionist Organization of America that he will apply standards that conflate criticism of Israel and Zionism with anti-Jewish bigotry when adjudicating complaints filed with his department.
“Trump’s and Marcus’ objective is to make it too costly for people to support Palestinian freedom,” Sainath explained.
Sainath said that the relentless targeting of the professor by Israel lobby groups shows that their strategy is to “silence anyone who takes a principled stance” for Palestinian rights.
“The tide is turning, they can’t win their case for apartheid on the merits – so they’re pursuing a campaign of intimidation and censorship,” she added.

“Wouldn’t cross a picket line”

Despite the threats and smears, Cheney-Lippold has stood by his decision.
He said that he supports the Palestinian call for an academic boycott “because I am appalled at Israel’s continuing violation of Palestinian rights, and our government’s support for those violations.”
If a student had wanted to do a study abroad program at an institution in South Africa under apartheid, he explained, “I would have declined to write a letter for her as well.”
Members of USACBI say that Cheney-Lippold’s decision “affirms an ethical position increasingly shared by artists, musicians, actors, scholars and students around the world who have endorsed the Palestinian call for an academic and cultural boycott of Israel.”
“A letter of recommendation is not a right but is written at the discretion of faculty members,” USACBI members stated in a open letter of support for Cheney-Lippold.
“Professors, like any other individual, are entitled to hold firm positions on a matter of conscience and act in regard with those principles,” they added.
More than 700 Palestinian rights supporters have signed a petition backing Cheney-Lippold.
Michigan is one of 25 US states that have passed measures intended to restrict BDS campaigning.
Michigan’s two anti-BDS laws, which Palestine Legal calls unconstitutional, apply to narrowly defined state procurement and construction contracts, not professors or an academic boycott.

Ali Abunimah contributed reporting.
How humans fit into Google’s machine future



The ConversationSeptember 26, 2018 6.23am EDT
In 1998, Google began humbly, formally incorporated in a Menlo Park garage, providing search results from a server housed in Lego bricks. It had a straightforward goal: make the poorly indexed World Wide Web accessible to humans. Its success was based on an algorithm that analyzed the linking structure of the internet itself to evaluate what web pages are most reputable and useful. But founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page had a much more ambitious goal: They wanted to organize the world’s information.
Twenty years later, they have built a company going far beyond even that lofty goal, providing individuals and businesses alike with email, file sharing, web hosting, home automation, smartphones and countless other services. The playful startup that began as a surveyor of the web has become an architect of reality, creating and defining what its billions of users find, see, know or are even aware of.
Google controls more than 90 percent of the global search market, driving users and companies alike to design websites that appeal to the company’s algorithms. If Google can’t find a piece of information, that knowledge simply doesn’t exist for Google users. If it’s not on Google, does it really exist at all?

The intimacy machine

Despite its billions of answered search queries, Google is not just an answer machine. Google monitors what responses people click on, assuming those are more relevant and of higher value, and returning them more prominently in future searches on that topic. The company also monitors user activities on its email, business applications, music and mobile operating systems, using that data as part of a feedback loop to give users more of what they like.
All the data it collects is the real source of Google’s dominance, making the company’s services ever better at providing users what they want. Through autocomplete and the personalized filtering of search results, Google tries to anticipate your needs, sometimes before you even have them. As Google’s former executive chairman Eric Schmidt once put it, “I actually think most people don’t want Google to answer their questions. They want Google to tell them what they should be doing next.”
What Google wants to be … Everett Collection/Shutterstock.com
Twenty years from now, with two more decades of progress, Google will be even more accomplished, perhaps approaching a vision Brin expressed years ago: “The perfect search engine would be like the mind of God.” People are coming to rely on these tools, with their advanced artificial intelligence-based algorithms, not just to know things but to help them think.
The search bar has already become a place people ask personal questions, a kind of confessional or stream of consciousness that is deeply revealing about who users are, what they believe and what they want. In the future, Google will know you even more intimately, combining search results, browsing history and location tracking with biophysical health data from wearables and other sources that could offer powerful insights into your state of mind.

A new kind of vulnerability

It is not far-fetched to imagine that, in the future, Google might know if an individual is depressed, or has cancer, before that user realizes it for herself. But even beyond that, Google may have the crucial role in an ever-tightening alignment between what you think your needs are, and what Google tells you they are.
Who’s in control – the person or the AI? A24 Films
Beyond its effects on individual people, Google is amassing power to influence society – perhaps invisibly. Fiction has a warning about what that might look like: In the movie “Ex Machina,” an entrepreneurial genius reveals how he assembled the raw material of billions of search queries into an artificial mind that is highly effective at manipulating humans based on what it learns about people’s behaviors and biases.
But this situation isn’t really fiction. As long ago as 2014, researchers at Facebook infamously demonstrated how easy it is to manipulate userswith positive or negative posts in their news feeds. As people hand algorithms more power over their daily lives, will they notice how the machines are steering them?

Surviving the glorious future

Whether Google ultimately exercises this power depends on its human leaders – and on the digital society Google is so central to building. The company is investing heavily in machine intelligence, committing itself to a highly automated future where the mechanics and, perhaps, the true insights of the quest for knowledge become difficult or impossible for humans to understand.
Google is gradually becoming an extension of individual and collective thought. It will get harder to recognize where people end and Google begins. People will become both empowered by and dependent on the technology – which will be easy for anyone to access but hard for people to control.
The amount of control Larry Page and Sergey Brin and their company exert over individual people’s lives has grown since this photo was taken in 2000. AP Photo/Randi Lynn Beach
Humans will need to find ways to collaborate with – and direct the activities of – increasingly sophisticated machine intelligence, rather than merely becoming users who blindly follow the leads of black boxes they no longer understand or control.
Based on our studies of the complex relationships between people and technologies, a critical key to this new understanding of algorithms will be storytelling. The human brain is bad at understanding and processing data – which is, of course, a machine’s core strength. To work together, a new human-machine relationship will have to depend on a uniquely human strength – storytelling. People will work best with systems that can work through stories and explain their actions in ways humans can understand and modify.
The more that people entrust computer-based systems with organizing culture and society, the more they should demand those systems function according to rules humans can comprehend. The day we stop being the primary authors of the story of humankind is the day it stops being a story about us.

FGM has no place in the 21st century

Sixty-eight million girls around the world are at risk, saysNatalia Kanem, the UNFPA’s executive director

A man shows the logo of a T-shirt that reads ‘Stop the Cut’, referring to female genital mutilation. Photograph: Siegfried Modola/Reuters

Fri 28 Sep 2018 

Your report (Burkina Faso botched FGM leaves 50 girls in hospital, 18 September) underscores the terrible toll this harmful practice continues to exert around the world. Female genital mutilation inflicts lasting emotional and physical harm on the most vulnerable members of society. It has no medical or religious justification – and no place in the 21st century.

Burkina Faso is actually one of the countries that has made a concerted effort to end FGM, which in some communities is seen as a rite of passage for girls. With 86 arrests and 43 convictions in 2017, and mobile courts to take the legal process to communities, the country is a leader in the enforcement of legislation banning the practice.

While legislation and enforcement provide a solid basis for tackling the problem, additional measures are needed to encourage communities to abandon the practice. The UNFPA and Unicef are jointly supporting grassroots efforts that unite community leaders, schools, parents and local non-governmental organisations to protect girls from harm. In some communities, FGM has been fully eliminated. In others, it has been replaced by new rites of passage that raise girls’ status rather than inflicting lifelong physical and psychological harm.

The UNFPA has set a goal to end practices that harm women and girls by 2030. This is also a target of the UN sustainable development goals, to be achieved the same year. Clearly, there is still a very long way to go: between now and 2030, the UNFPA estimates that 68 million girls around the world – not only in Africa, but also in Asia, Europe and the Americas – may be subjected to female genital mutilation, robbing them of their bodily integrity and violating their human rights. There is no time to waste.

Dr Natalia Kanem

Executive director, UNFPA

 Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

 Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters

 Do you have a photo you’d like to share with Guardian readers? Click here to upload it and we’ll publish the best submissions in the letters spread of our print edition

Adultery no longer a Crime in India — Read the Judgment

Indian Supreme Court strikes down Section 497 IPC


by Bar and Bench-
( September 27, 2018, New Delhi, Sri Lanka Guardian) A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court today unanimously struck down Section 497 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), which penalises adultery.
The judgment was delivered by a Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Rohinton Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra.
The Bench wrote four separate but concurring judgments. CJI Misra wrote on behalf of himself and Justice Khanwilkar. Justices Nariman, Chandrachud and Malhotra wrote a judgment each.
“Any provision treating woman with inequality is not Constitutional”, CJI Dipak Misra said, as he began pronouncing his judgment.
He went on to strike down Section 497 on grounds of being manifestly arbitrary and therefore violate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
He further held that Adultery can be ground for civil issues including dissolution of marriage, but it cannot be a criminal offence.
Justice Nariman concurred with CJI Misra and Justice Khanwilkar J, holding Section 497 violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
“Ancient notions of man being perpetrator and woman being victim no longer holds good”, he held.
Justice Chandrachud was the next to concur with the judgment, stating that Section 497 is based on viewing women as chattel, seeks to control sexuality of woman, and hits the autonomy and dignity of women. He, therefore, struck down the provisions criminalizing Adultery as violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Finally, Justice Malhotra sealed the fate of the provision, questioning the need to make Adultery a criminal offence. The Bench thus unanimously struck down Section 497 as being ultra vires various provisions of the Constitution.
The petition seeking the repeal of Section 497 IPC had initially come up before the Supreme Court in December 2017. It was filed by one Joseph Shine.  Advocates Kaleeswaram Raj and Suvidutt MS had appeared for Shine. Additional Solicitor General Pinky Anand represented the Central government.
Section 497 of IPC criminalises the offence of adultery, but only a man is liable to be punished for the offence. Further, if the husband of the woman gives his consent for sexual intercourse with another man, no offence lies.
Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
The law identifies the married man as the victim. Further, it does not give any right to a woman to prosecute her husband should he be in an adulterous relationship. In this backdrop, the petition prompted the Court  to revisit whether the Section was liable to be struck down, inter alia, for being violative of gender equality.
In January this year, a three-Judge bench led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra referred the case to a Constitution Bench. While doing so, an observation was also made that the law was archaic and looked at women as objects or ‘chattel’ owned by their husbands. These concepts needed to be revisited in a progressive society, the Court had opined.
The three-day hearing before the Constitution Bench commenced on August 1. Before this Bench, the petitioners submitted that while adultery should remain as a valid ground to seek divorce, it should cease to be a criminal offence, considering the act is consensual in nature.
The position of the Government of India was made clear in July this year, when it filed its counter-affidavit in the case. The Centre was of the view that adultery should be retained as an offence to protect the “sanctity of marriage” in India.
The final hearing in the case took place on August 8, on which date the Court reserved its judgment.
Read the Judgment:

Christine Blasey Ford ‘100% certain’ Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her

-27 Sep 2018Washington Correspondent
Kylie Morris is in Washington, where the Senate has been hearing the testimony of a woman who says she was sexually assaulted by the man President Trump wants to put in the Supreme Court.

Kavanaugh vote: Flake, Murkowski back FBI investigation; Senate committee advances nominee

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted Sept. 28 on Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh. Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) was the deciding vote.

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted along party lines Friday to advance the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh after securing a key vote from Sen. Jeff Flake, who asked for a delay of up to a week before the full Senate votes.

Flake (R-Ariz.) said the delay would allow a limited FBI investigation of allegations of sexual assault while Kavanaugh was a teenager.

The 11-to-10 vote came a day after hearing riveting testimony from Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who has accused President Trump’s nominee of sexual assault at a house party in Maryland in the early 1980s.

Flake’s request cast doubt on whether the full Senate would move forward as planned, starting with a previously announced procedural vote on Saturday, as other wavering lawmakers started to join Flake. Earlier Friday, Republican leaders had vowed to take a final vote to confirm Kavanaugh by early next week.

Following Flake’s announcement, two other senators considered swing votes — Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Sens. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) — indicated that they support Flake’s call for a delay.

“The American people have been pulled apart by this entire spectacle and we need to take time to address these claims independently, so that our country can have confidence in the outcome of this vote,” Manchin said in a statement. “It is what is right and fair for Dr. Ford, Judge Kavanaugh, and the American people.”
With a slim 51-49 majority in the Senate, it would be difficult for the GOP to press ahead with a procedural vote on Saturday if two Republican senators defect and they are not able to bring on board any Democrats.

While the timing of the floor vote is up to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) said he would advocate for Flake’s request.

“This is all a gentlemen’s and women’s agreement,” Grassley said after the committee vote.
Speaking to reporters at the White House after the committee vote, Trump said he would defer to Senate leaders on how to proceed with his nominee. “Whatever they think is necessary is okay,” Trump said. “They have to do what they think is right.”

He continued to stand by Kavanaugh, saying he had not thought “even a little bit” about a replacement but also said he found Ford a “credible witness.”

The move by Flake, a frequent Trump critic who is retiring from the Senate after this year, was cheered by several Democrats, including Sen. Chris Coons (Del.), a fellow member of the Judiciary Committee.

“He and I don’t share a lot of political views but we share a deep concern for the health of this institution and what it means to the rest of the world and the country,” said Coons, who huddled with Flake before he announced his position.

Flake is “someone who is willing to take a real political risk and upset many in his party by asking for a pause,” Coons said.

As Kavanaugh’s nomination heads to the floor, his prospects remain unclear in the full Senate.
Two other senators considered swing votes — Susan Collins (Maine) and Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.) — remained silent about their intentions Friday.

Meanwhile, another red-state Democrat, Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) announced Friday that he would oppose Kavanaugh’s nomination. Republicans had been courting Donnelly, one of three Democrats, along with Manchin and Heitkamp, who supported previous Trump Supreme Court nominee Neil M. Gorsuch.

“I have deep reservations about Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to this lifetime position and ... we have been unable to get all the information necessary regarding this nomination, despite my best efforts,” Donnelly said in a statement. “Only 113 people have ever served on the Supreme Court, and I believe that we must do our level best to protect its sanctity.”

Mark Judge, a friend and high school classmate of Kavanaugh, is likely to be a prominent figure in any inquiry by the FBI. Ford claims he was present when Kavanaugh allegedly attacked her. Another Kavanaugh accuser also alleges that Judge and Kavanaugh sought on multiple occasions in high school to drug inebriated girls for nonconsensual sex with multiple boys — an accusation Kavanaugh has strongly denied.

“If the FBI or any law enforcement agency requests Mr. Judge’s cooperation, he will answer any and all questions posed to him,” Judge’s lawyer Barbara Van Gelder said.

Judge met with his lawyer Friday morning in Washington, after returning from being holed up in a Bethany Beach, Del., home. The Post found him there on Monday, where his lawyer said he had fled to try to avoid an avalanche of press requests and criticism.

Judge told the Senate Judiciary Committee Friday he either does not recall or flatly rejects the allegations about his and Kavanaugh’s behavior in high school.

At the committee vote neared Friday, senators on both sides of the aisle took turns giving their reasons for supporting or opposing Kavanaugh, many in impassioned terms.

“He does not have the veracity nor temperament for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in our nation,” Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) said of Kavanaugh. “And no such nominee should be confirmed in the face of such serious, credible and unresolved allegations of sexual assault.”

“I’ve never heard a more compelling defense of one’s honor and integrity,” Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) countered, referring to Kavanaugh’s performance at Thursday’s hearing.

Graham declared that judicial confirmations would now be starkly different going forward, noting the “process before Kavanaugh, and the process after Kavanaugh.”

“I can say about Ms. Ford, I feel sorry for her, and I do believe something happened to her, and I don’t know when and where,” Graham said. “But I don’t believe it was Brett Kavanaugh.”

Shortly after the Judiciary Committee convened Friday, the panel voted down a motion on party lines by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) to subpoena Judge, who had said he does not want to be part of a committee hearing.

The committee then voted, again along party lines, to decide on Kavanaugh’s nomination at 1:30 p.m. The votes prompted outrage from Democrats.

“This is just totally ridiculous. What a railroad job,” said Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii).
Several Senate Democrats — including Blumenthal, Hirono, Sen. Kamala D. Harris (Calif.), and Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.) — walked out in protest.

Underscoring the acrimony surrounding Friday’s proceedings, a dozen House Democratic women who gathered to watch the Judiciary Committee stood up in the room in protest.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) later told reporters that she thinks President Trump “is trying to break the MeToo movement” with his continued support for Kavanaugh.

Meanwhile, shortly after Flake announced his support for Kavanaugh, two women tearfully and loudly confronted the Arizona senator in an el­e­va­tor, tell­ing him that he was dis­miss­ing the pain of sex­ual as­sault survivors.

“What you are doing is al­low­ing some­one who ac­tu­al­ly vio­lat­ed a woman to sit in the Su­preme Court,” one woman shout­ed during a live CNN broadcast as Flake was making his way to the Judiciary Committee meeting. “This is hor­rible. You have chil­dren in your fam­i­ly. Think a­bout them.”

Flake lis­tened quietly, then told the women: “Thank you.”

Before the committee meeting, White House officials fanned out across morning television shows to tout Kavanaugh’s fiery performance in Thursday’s hearing and press the Senate to vote.

“I think he was incredibly powerful and very clear,” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said of Kavanaugh during an appearance on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

She suggested that Ford was mistaken about her attacker and said Kavanaugh has “been unequivocal since Day One that this did not take place by him.”

During a television appearance Friday morning before the committee vote, Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Tex.) said he is “optimistic we’ll confirm the judge.”

Asked about Republican holdouts on “Fox & Friends,” Cornyn said, “They have not publicly committed, but we’ve been engaging in personal texts, conversations, face-to-face visits. It’s the norm for how thing happen here . . . I respect their right to make their own announcement, which I’m sure they’ll do in due course.”

The votes of several red-state Democrats have also been in play.

Late Thursday, one of them, Sen. Doug Jones (Ala.), said in a tweet that he would vote no if the chamber presses ahead with consideration of Kavanaugh the day after hearing from Ford, whom Jones said he found “credible & courageous.”

With her voice shaking at times, Ford described in stark detail Thursday being pinned on a bed at a house party by a drunken Kavanaugh, who she said groped her, tried to take off her clothes and put his hand over her mouth to stifle her screams. She said she was “100 percent” certain that Kavanaugh was her attacker.

In his tweet, Jones repeated a call for the Senate to postpone the vote and hear from Judge, who Ford said was in the room when Kavanaugh allegedly assaulted her in 1982.

“What message will we send to our daughters & sons, let alone sexual assault victims?” Jones said in his tweet. “The message I will send is this — I vote no. #RightSideofHistory”

Late Thursday, the American Bar Association, which had previously rated Kavanaugh “well-qualified” for the Supreme Court, called on the Judiciary Committee to halt the confirmation vote, saying it should not move forward until an FBI investigation into the sexual assault allegations against him can be completed.

During her appearance on ABC, Sanders suggested that was unnecessary, saying the FBI has conducted six previous background checks on Kavanaugh for federal positions.

“These allegations took place long before any of those background checks would have taken place,” she said, adding that senators had asked questions Thursday similar to what the FBI would ask if it reopened its process.

Rachel Mitchell, the outside counsel hired by Republicans to question Ford, told GOP senators in a closed-door meeting Thursday night that she would not have prosecuted the matter because there was no corroborating evidence, according to two GOP sources familiar with her presentation. She also told the senators that Ford was a compelling witness who had clearly suffered trauma.

Mitchell, a registered Republican, has not commented about the case. Republicans have rebuffed repeated requests from Democrats to call other witnesses who might have corroborated Ford’s account and also rejected Democratic calls for an FBI investigation.

Mitchell’s comments reassured Republicans who have been wavering about the nomination, according to GOP sources who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations.

During Thursday’s hearing, Kavanaugh angrily assailed Democrats for pushing what he said were false charges to “blow me up and take me down.”

The 53-year-old federal judge was often tearful and paused for gulps of water as he spoke about the toll that the allegations by Ford and two other women have taken on his wife, his children, his parents and his friends.

“This has destroyed my family and my good name,” he said, adding: “This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election.”

It remained unclear whether an FBI review would include two other Kavanaugh accusers.

Deborah Ramirez, a classmate of Kavanaugh’s at Yale University, told the New Yorker magazine that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a party when they were both first-year students.

Julie Swetnick, a Washington resident, said in a declaration that Kavanaugh was physically abusive toward girls in high school and present at a house party in 1982 where she says she was the victim of a “gang” rape. She is being represented by Michael Avenatti, whose clients also include Stormy Daniels, the adult-film actress who was paid to remain silent about an alleged decade-old affair with Trump.

Carol D. Leonnig, Sean Sullivan, Mike DeBonis, Paul Kane, Robert Barnes and Elise Viebeck contributed to this report.