This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/19/us/politics/kavanaugh-trump-blasey-ford.html

The article has changed 11 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 4 Version 5
Kavanaugh Accuser Rejects Senate Hearing as Unfair Kavanaugh’s Supporters and His Accuser Are at An Impasse Over Her Testimony
(about 1 hour later)
WASHINGTON — The woman who has accused Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her when they were teenagers said Wednesday that the hearing the Senate Judiciary Committee plans to hold next week to examine her allegations would not be fair or adequate. WASHINGTON — The confrontation between Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh and his accuser devolved into a polarizing stalemate on Wednesday as Democrats and Republicans advanced competing narratives to convince voters that the other side has been unfair in the Supreme Court confirmation battle.
Speaking through a lawyer, Christine Blasey Ford, a university professor in Northern California, said she remained willing to cooperate with the committee as it considers Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court, but did not want to appear at a hearing where the two of them would be the only witnesses. Christine Blasey Ford, the professor who alleged that Judge Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when they were teenagers, said a Senate hearing set for Monday to hear her allegation would not be fair and Democrats insisted that an F.B.I. investigation take place first. Backed by President Trump, Senate Republicans rejected any F.B.I. inquiry, and said that Monday was her chance to be heard. He later set a meeting for Wednesday for a possible vote.
“The committee’s stated plan to move forward with a hearing that has only two witnesses is not a fair or good faith investigation; there are multiple witnesses whose names have appeared publicly and should be included in any proceeding,” the lawyer, Lisa J. Banks, said in a statement. “The rush to a hearing is unnecessary, and contrary to the committee discovering the truth.” Dr. Blasey’s resistance to appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday seemed to galvanize Republicans and drew wavering Republican senators back into Judge Kavanaugh’s camp. Barring new information or an agreement by Dr. Blasey to testify after all, Judge Kavanaugh may now have enough momentum to be confirmed as early as next week on a party-line vote.
Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa and the chairman of the committee, said Wednesday that he was flexible on how to handle the questioning of Dr. Blasey but not on the date. He offered to hold a public hearing or to conduct the interview behind closed doors, whichever she preferred, and that Dr. Blasey could be questioned by staff members or lawyers who could interview her in California. Hanging over the impasse were the midterm elections, now less than seven weeks away. Republicans were determined to confirm Judge Kavanaugh before then, knowing that if Democrats managed to win control of the Senate, it would be exponentially harder to approve any nominees sent by Mr. Trump. Conversely, for Democrats, a delay in voting on Judge Kavanaugh would increase the chances of blocking his confirmation and enhance the influence Democrats would have over who eventually fills the vacant seat.
But Mr. Grassley rejected Dr. Blasey’s request that the F.B.I. investigate her charges before any hearing and made clear that he would not postpone the hearing past Monday. “It would be a disservice to Dr. Ford, Judge Kavanaugh, this Committee, and the American people to delay this hearing any further,” he wrote in a letter to committee Democrats. In a statement, Lisa J. Banks, a lawyer for Dr. Blasey, said on Wednesday that her client was still willing to work with the Judiciary Committee, but was not convinced that a hearing featuring just her and Judge Kavanaugh would be adequate.
The back-and-forth came hours after President Trump described the allegation against Judge Kavanaugh as hard to believe and the furor surrounding it as “very unfair” to the judge. “The committee’s stated plan to move forward with a hearing that has only two witnesses is not a fair or good faith investigation; there are multiple witnesses whose names have appeared publicly and should be included in any proceeding,” Ms. Banks said. “The rush to a hearing is unnecessary, and contrary to the committee discovering the truth.”
Speaking with reporters before leaving the White House to visit hurricane-ravaged North Carolina, the president again refrained from directly assailing Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser, as he has in other instances of sexual misconduct charges, including those lodged against him. But he expressed sympathy for his nominee. Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa and the committee chairman, said he was flexible on how to handle the questioning of Dr. Blasey but not on the date. He offered to hold a public hearing or to conduct the interview behind closed doors, whichever she preferred. He said she could be questioned by staff members rather than senators, and that he would even send lawyers to California to interview her, if she liked.
“Really, they’re hurting somebody’s life,” he said of the senators considering Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination. “Justice Kavanaugh has been treated very, very tough, and his family. I think it’s a very unfair thing what’s going on.” But he rejected Dr. Blasey’s request that the F.B.I. investigate her charges before any hearing and made clear that he would not postpone it past Monday. “It would be a disservice to Dr. Ford, Judge Kavanaugh, this committee and the American people to delay this hearing any further,” he wrote in a letter to committee Democrats.
During his seven-minute encounter with reporters, Mr. Trump referred to his nominee as “Justice Kavanaugh” three times. Still, the president seemed to leave open the possibility that he might have to find another nominee if the accuser proved believable. The mood at the White House improved on Wednesday, and Mr. Trump referred to Judge Kavanaugh as “Justice Kavanaugh” three times during a seven-minute exchange with reporters. He again avoided directly attacking Dr. Blasey, but said he found her charges hard to believe.
“I think it’s a very unfair thing what’s going on,” the president said.
Still, he seemed to leave open the possibility that he might have to find another nominee if Dr. Blasey proved persuasive.
“Look, if she shows up and makes a credible showing, that will be very interesting and we’ll have to make a decision,” Mr. Trump said. “But I can only say this: He is such an outstanding man. Very hard for me to imagine that anything happened.”“Look, if she shows up and makes a credible showing, that will be very interesting and we’ll have to make a decision,” Mr. Trump said. “But I can only say this: He is such an outstanding man. Very hard for me to imagine that anything happened.”
Dr. Blasey, 51, who is sometimes also called by her married name, Ford, has accused Judge Kavanaugh, 53, of pinning her to a bed, groping her, trying to remove her clothing and covering her mouth to keep her from screaming during a party when the two were teenagers in Maryland in the early 1980s. Judge Kavanaugh has categorically denied the allegation, and the only other person Dr. Blasey said was in the room has also said he does not remember such an assault and had never seen Judge Kavanaugh behave that way. Democrats acknowledged that Republicans seemed to have reassured the members of their conference uneasy over the allegation and could confirm Judge Kavanaugh on the strength of their razor-thin 51-to-49 majority.
Another high school friend, Patrick J. Smyth, who was identified as also being at the party Dr. Blasey described but not in the room at the time of the alleged assault, said Wednesday that he does not remember anything like it. “Clearly, the Senate Republicans have decided to tough it out, and they are worried about one constituency at this point,” Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, said in an interview. “It is not the American public; it is the six or seven Senate Republicans who objected last week to a hurry-up hearing. They think they have them back in their corner.”
“I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh,” he said in a letter being sent on Wednesday to the Judiciary Committee, according to CNN. He added: “I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh towards women.” Still, the emergence of Dr. Blasey’s allegation may have cost Republicans the chance of winning support from any of the red-state Democrats they were hoping to enlist. Senator Claire McCaskill, a Democrat facing a competitive re-election in Missouri, announced Wednesday that she will vote against confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh.
Speaking through her lawyers, Dr. Blasey, a research psychologist, on Tuesday evening all but ruled out appearing at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing scheduled for Monday to hear her allegations. The lawyers said she wanted to cooperate with the committee but that it would be premature for her to testify and that the F.B.I. should investigate first. Ms. McCaskill said she was concerned about the accusation against the judge, but based her decision on campaign finance law. “He has revealed his bias against limits on campaign donations, which places him completely out of the mainstream of this nation,” she said in a statement.
Her position mirrored that of Senate Democrats who complained that Republicans were trying to rush through a cursory examination of her charges so as to expeditiously confirm Judge Kavanaugh. But Dr. Blasey’s refusal to commit to testifying on Monday seemed to solidify the Republican caucus behind moving ahead with a vote. Even wavering Republicans who insisted on hearing her before deciding on confirmation said she should show up on Monday to testify. Dr. Blasey, 51, a university professor in Northern California who is also known by her married name, Ford, has accused Judge Kavanaugh, 53, of pinning her to a bed, groping her, trying to remove her clothing and covering her mouth to keep her from screaming during a party in the early 1980s when the two were teenagers in Maryland. Judge Kavanaugh has categorically denied the allegation, and the only other person Dr. Blasey said was in the room has also said he does not remember such an assault and had never seen Judge Kavanaugh behave that way.
Mr. Grassley all but dismissed the calls by Dr. Blasey and Democrats for an outside investigation and to delay Monday’s hearing. Asked his response to Democrats, he told reporters on Wednesday, “A simple answer to that would be why didn’t Dianne Feinstein send the request to the F.B.I. on July the 30th instead of now?” Another high school friend, Patrick J. Smyth, came forward on Wednesday, saying he was one of two other people Dr. Blasey identified being elsewhere in the house at the time of the alleged assault. In a letter to the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Smyth said he did not remember anything like it.
Senator Feinstein of California, the top Democrat on the committee, received a letter from Dr. Blasey in July making her allegations but did not report them to the rest of the panel. Senator Feinstein has said she did not raise the matter because Dr. Blasey asked that it remain confidential. But after stories appeared last week about an unnamed accuser, Dr. Blasey allowed her name to be used in an interview posted by The Washington Post on Sunday. “I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh,” he wrote. He added, “I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh towards women.”
Even as he rejected an F.B.I. investigation, Mr. Grassley said he would press hard through Friday to persuade Dr. Blasey to come forward and testify before his panel, and he repeated his offer to let her testify privately or participate in an interview with committee staff members, rather than make a public appearance in front of television cameras. With the conflict over the confirmation and the supercharged allegations taking place so close to the midterms, both sides were deeply anxious about the possible effect and were eager to blame the other. Republicans argued that they have given Dr. Blasey an opportunity to tell her story to the Senate, either in public or in private, while Democrats said the refusal to call in the F.B.I. showed that the president’s party was not really interested in finding the truth.
“When there is follow up necessary, we have all the information we need of all the people involved,” he said. “We are going to reach out everybody that we know about for communication with our staff investigators. I would hope Democrats would take part in those interviews.” “This process has been off the rails for a long time now, but the last 24 hours signal a new low,” said Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island. He noted that Dr. Blasey has been harassed and forced to leave her own home since bringing her account to the public. “In the fact of this, Republicans are jamming her into a ‘take it or leave it’ kangaroo hearing without even the courtesy of proper investigation of her claims. It is a disgrace.”
Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican committee member from South Carolina and an ally of the president’s who was traveling with him on Wednesday, said that requiring an F.B.I. investigation before a hearing would not be “about finding the truth but delaying the process until after the midterm elections,” when Democrats hope to win control of the Senate. Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican committee member from South Carolina and ally of the president’s who traveled with him on Wednesday to view hurricane damage, said that requiring an F.B.I. investigation before a hearing would not be “about finding the truth but delaying the process until after the midterm elections,” when Democrats hope to win control of the Senate.
“It is imperative the Judiciary Committee move forward on the Kavanaugh nomination and a committee vote be taken as soon as possible,” Mr. Graham said in a statement.“It is imperative the Judiciary Committee move forward on the Kavanaugh nomination and a committee vote be taken as soon as possible,” Mr. Graham said in a statement.
Following the advice of aides who have urged him not to inflame the situation, Mr. Trump remained relatively mild in his latest comments. “If she shows up, that would be wonderful,” he said. “If she doesn’t show up, that would be unfortunate.” For many Democrats, the insistence on quick action and the charge of obstructionism rang hollow given that Republicans refused to even meet with President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Merrick B. Garland, in 2016. Judge Garland never received a hearing, and the vacant seat resulting from the death of Justice Antonin Scalia was eventually filled by Mr. Trump’s first Supreme Court choice, Neil M. Gorsuch.
“I’d really want to see her,” he said. “I really would want to see what she has to say.” Three of the Republican senators who had insisted on postponing a committee vote on Judge Kavanaugh originally scheduled for Thursday until hearing from Dr. Blasey have now said she should testify on Monday.
The allegations against Judge Kavanaugh appeared to diminish his public standing, according to a new poll by Reuters and Ipsos. Opposition to his confirmation rose by six percentage points to 36 percent in a survey that began before Dr. Blasey went public and continued through Monday after The Post article. Just 31 percent said they support his confirmation, which would rank him among the lowest nominees if he were eventually confirmed. “I don’t think she can reject all those options because otherwise there are these very serious allegations hanging over the head of a nominee who has emphatically denied them,” Senator Susan Collins told a radio station in her home state, Maine, on Wednesday. “That’s just not a good way for us to end. So I think she needs to come forward, and we need to provide her with any protection she may ask for herself and her family.”
Ms. Collins noted that Dr. Blasey had secured the services of lawyers and should be prepared for testifying. “There’s more than a week between when she made the allegations and the date of the hearing,” she said. “I just don’t understand why the hearing shouldn’t go forth.”
Following the advice of aides, Mr. Trump refrained from any inflammatory comments about the court fight. “If she shows up, that would be wonderful,” he told reporters before leaving for North Carolina. “If she doesn’t show up, that would be unfortunate.”
“I’d really want to see her,” the president said. “I really would want to see what she has to say.”
The allegations against Judge Kavanaugh appeared to diminish his public standing, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll. Opposition to his confirmation rose by six percentage points to 36 percent in a survey that began before Dr. Blasey went public and continued through Monday after The Post article. Only 31 percent said they support his confirmation, which would rank him among the lowest nominees if he were eventually confirmed.
While Dr. Blasey and Democrats have called for an F.B.I. investigation before a hearing, it is unlikely the bureau would open a criminal investigation of Judge Kavanaugh because Dr. Blasey’s accusations do not involve a potential federal crime. Sexual assault would typically be a state crime, and the passage of more than three decades would make any prosecution problematic, according to legal experts.
Democrats pointed out on Wednesday that the F.B.I. was asked to investigate Anita F. Hill’s sexual harassment claims against Clarence Thomas when he was nominated for the Supreme Court in 1991. But Mr. Grassley said that happened when Ms. Hill’s allegations were still confidential and pointed out that she testified at a hearing only five days after her charges became public, much as Dr. Blasey is being asked to do.
The F.B.I. does conduct background checks on Supreme Court nominees and passes along information to officials running the confirmation process, but it does not make judgments on the credibility of the claims, according to Justice Department guidelines.
“The F.B.I.’s role in such matters is to provide information for the use of the decision makers,” according to background check guidelines issued in 2010 during the Obama administration.
While the F.B.I. should “apprise the president or his designated representative” when new information surfaces that raises questions about the suitability of an appointee, “the F.B.I. does not make any judgment about the credibility or significance of any allegation.”