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/2018/10/01/us/politics/trump-fbi-kavanaugh.html

The article has changed 8 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 4 Version 5
White House Tells F.B.I. to Interview Anyone Necessary for Kavanaugh Inquiry White House Tells F.B.I. to Interview Anyone Necessary for Kavanaugh Inquiry
(about 3 hours later)
WASHINGTON — The White House has authorized the F.B.I. to expand its abbreviated investigation into sexual misconduct allegations against Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh by interviewing anyone it deems necessary as long as the review is finished by the end of the week, two people briefed on the matter said on Monday. WASHINGTON — The White House authorized the F.B.I. to expand its abbreviated investigation into sexual misconduct allegations against Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh by interviewing anyone it deems necessary as long as the review is finished by the end of the week, according to two people briefed on the matter.
The new directive came in the past 24 hours after a backlash from Democrats, who criticized the White House for limiting the scope of the bureau’s investigation into President Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court. The F.B.I. has already interviewed the four witnesses its agents were originally asked to talk to, the people said. At an event on Monday celebrating a new trade deal with Canada and Mexico, Mr. Trump said he instructed his White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, over the weekend to contact the F.B.I. to carry out an open investigation, but the president included the caveat that the inquiry should accommodate the desires of Senate Republicans.
Mr. Trump said on Monday that he favored a “comprehensive” F.B.I. investigation and had no problem if the bureau wanted to question Judge Kavanaugh or even a third accuser who was left off the initial witness list if she seemed credible. His only concerns he said, were that the investigation be wrapped up quickly and that it take direction from the Senate Republicans who will determine whether Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed. The new directive came after a backlash from Democrats, who criticized the White House for limiting the scope of the bureau’s investigation into Mr. Kavanaugh, President Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court. The F.B.I. has already interviewed the four witnesses it was originally asked to question, and on Monday it reached out to others.
“The F.B.I. should interview anybody that they want within reason, but you have to say within reason,” Mr. Trump told reporters in the Rose Garden after an event celebrating a new trade deal with Canada and Mexico. “But they should also be guided, and I’m being guided, by what the senators are looking for.” The broadening inquiry produced an unusual spectacle as friends and classmates from Judge Kavanaugh’s past provided dueling portraits of the nominee in his younger days — either a good-natured student incapable of the alleged behavior or a stumbling drunk who could easily have blacked out and forgotten inappropriate behavior at alcohol-soaked parties.
Senate Republican leaders, however, made clear that they planned to move forward with the confirmation without waiting for the results of the investigation. Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, said the Senate would take a procedural vote on Friday so it could move quickly to final confirmation once the inquiry was over. How far the F.B.I. will now delve into these questions beyond the original high school-era sexual assault allegation lodged by Christine Blasey Ford remained unclear. Senate Democrats sent the bureau a list of list of two dozen witnesses they believed must be interviewed for an inquiry to be credible. Another accuser, Deborah Ramirez, has given the bureau the names of more than 20 people she said witnessed Judge Kavanaugh exposing himself to her in college or heard about it at the time or later, according to someone involved in the investigation.
Chastising Democrats on the Senate floor, Mr. McConnell said that he would “bet almost anything” that they would be unsatisfied with the scope of the investigation regardless of how far it went. Reading through a selected summary of Democrats’ comments about the matter, he said, “Do these actions suggest this has ever been about finding the truth?” Mr. Trump said on Monday that he wanted a “comprehensive” F.B.I. investigation and had no problem if the bureau wanted to question Judge Kavanaugh or even a third accuser who was left off the initial witness list, if she seemed credible. His only concerns he said, were that the investigation be wrapped up quickly and that it take direction from the Senate Republicans who will determine whether Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed.
Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the minority leader, said that the White House counsel should make public what he has told the F.B.I. and emphasize that it was not “the partisan Republican Senate staff that is directing this investigation.” In an interview, Mr. Schumer added, “You can do a full investigation in the seven-day requirement, and that’s what senators on both sides of the aisle expect.” “The F.B.I. should interview anybody that they want within reason, but you have to say within reason,” Mr. Trump told reporters in the Rose Garden. “But they should also be guided, and I’m being guided, by what the senators are looking for.”
The revised White House instruction amounted to a risky bet that the F.B.I. will not find anything new in the next four days that could change the public view of the allegations. Republicans have resisted an open-ended investigation that could head in unpredictable directions. But the limited time frame could minimize the danger even as it increases the likelihood that F.B.I. interviews do not resolve the conflicting accounts. Senate Republican leaders made clear that they did not expect the investigation to prevent them from confirming Judge Kavanaugh. Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, said the Senate would take a procedural vote on Friday so it could move quickly to final confirmation by the weekend or early next week.
Mr. Trump said he instructed his White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, over the weekend to tell the F.B.I. to carry out an open investigation, although he included the caveat that it should accommodate the desires of Senate Republicans. Mr. McGahn followed through with a call to the F.B.I., according to the people briefed on the matter. Chastising Democrats on the Senate floor, Mr. McConnell said that he would “bet almost anything” that they would be unsatisfied with the scope of the investigation, regardless of how far it went. Reading through a selected summary of Democrats’ comments about the matter, he said, “Do these actions suggest this has ever been about finding the truth?”
“I want them to do a very comprehensive investigation, whatever that means, according to the senators and the Republicans and the Republican majority,” Mr. Trump said. “I want them to do that. I want it to be comprehensive. I actually think it’s a good thing for Judge Kavanaugh.” Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, said that the White House should make public what it has told the F.B.I. and emphasize that it was not “the partisan Republican Senate staff that is directing this investigation.” In an interview, Mr. Schumer added, “You can do a full investigation in the seven-day requirement, and that’s what senators on both sides of the aisle expect.”
Asked if the F.B.I. should question Judge Kavanaugh, Mr. Trump said, “I think so. I think it’s fine if they do. I don’t know. That’s up to them.” The revised White House instructions amounted to a risky bet that the F.B.I. will not find anything new in the next four days that could change the public view of the allegations. Republicans have resisted an open-ended investigation that could head in unpredictable directions, and the limited time frame could make it harder for the F.B.I. to resolve the conflicting accounts.
As for Julie Swetnick, the third accuser who has claimed that Judge Kavanaugh attended parties during high school where girls were gang raped, Mr. Trump said he would not object to her being interviewed. “It wouldn’t bother me at all. Now I don’t know all three of the accusers. Certainly I imagine they’re going to interview two. The third one I don’t know much about.” The contradictions were on public display on Monday. Dan Murphy, who lived in the same suite as Judge Kavanaugh at Yale University, said in a written statement that descriptions of a boorish drunk were “simply wrong” and incompatible with his experience. “I never saw Brett black out or not be able to remember the prior evening’s events,” he said, “nor did I ever see Brett act aggressive, hostile or in a sexually aggressive manner to women.”
He added that he understood she had “very little credibility” but added that “if there is any credibility, interview the third one.” But Charles “Chad” Ludington, another Yale classmate, told reporters outside his home in North Carolina that he saw Judge Kavanaugh so drunk that he could have easily forgotten his actions. Mr. Ludington said he did not think that loutish behavior at age 18 or 21 should condemn a person for life, but lying to the Senate at age 53 should matter. “There were certainly many times when he could not remember what was going on,” he said.
Mr. Trump again accepted Judge Kavanaugh’s denials and portrayed the process as deeply unfair to his nominee. But he added that he would reconsider the nomination if the F.B.I. turned up something that warranted it. At the Rose Garden event, Mr. Trump again accepted Judge Kavanaugh’s denials and portrayed his confirmation process as deeply unfair. But the president added that he would reconsider the nomination if the F.B.I. turned up something that warranted it. “Certainly, if they find something, I’m going to take that into consideration,” he said.
“Certainly if they find something I’m going to take that into consideration,” the president said. “Absolutely. I have a very open mind. The person that takes that position is going to be there a long time.” Mr. Trump ordered the one-week F.B.I. investigation on Friday after Senator Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona and a key swing vote, insisted the allegations be examined before he committed to voting to confirm Judge Kavanaugh. But the White House and Senate Republicans gave the F.B.I. a list of only four people to question: Ms. Ramirez and Mark Judge, P.J. Smyth and Leland Keyser, three people Dr. Blasey identified as being at the house where she said Judge Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when they were teenagers.
Mr. Trump ordered the one-week F.B.I. investigation on Friday after Senator Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona and a key swing vote on the nomination, insisted that the allegations be examined before he committed to voting to confirm Judge Kavanaugh on the floor. But the White House and Senate Republicans gave the F.B.I. a list of just four people to question: Mark Judge and P.J. Smyth, high school friends of Judge Kavanaugh’s; Leland Keyser, a high school friend of his main accuser, Christine Blasey Ford; and Deborah Ramirez, another of the judge’s accusers. Agents may return to Mr. Judge for more questions. All three have said that they did not remember any such party. Mr. Smyth’s lawyer said on Monday that he told the F.B.I. “that he has no knowledge of the small party” that Dr. Blasey described nor of “any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled.” Agents plan to return to Mr. Judge, who she said was actually in the room at the time, for more questions.
Mr. Flake expressed concern on Monday that the inquiry not be limited and said he had pressed to make sure that happens. “It does no good to have an investigation that gives us more cover, for example,” he said during a public appearance in Boston. “We actually need to find out what we can find out.”Mr. Flake expressed concern on Monday that the inquiry not be limited and said he had pressed to make sure that happens. “It does no good to have an investigation that gives us more cover, for example,” he said during a public appearance in Boston. “We actually need to find out what we can find out.”
Senator Chris Coons, the Delaware Democrat who worked with Mr. Flake to initiate the limited investigation, called Mr. McGahn on Sunday after reading reports about the narrow mandate. Mr. Coons said he was alarmed by what he heard and informed other senators who pushed for the inquiry in hopes that they would relay their own concern to the Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican majority leader. Senator Chris Coons, Democrat of Delaware, who worked with Mr. Flake to initiate the investigation, called Mr. McGahn on Sunday after reading reports about the narrow mandate. “I said that doesn’t strike me as credible,” he recalled in an interview. “The F.B.I. needs to be allowed to pursue all reasonable investigatory steps from the credible allegations in front of the committee.”
“He said some things I found very reassuring about doing it by the book and sharing promptly interview product with the Judiciary Committee,” Mr. Coons said in an interview on Monday with the News Journal of Delaware. “But he also said things that I found very concerning about the scope, the number of witnesses, the process.” Several former F.B.I. officials said that they could think of no previous instance when the White House restricted the bureau’s ability to interview potential witnesses during a background check. Chuck Rosenberg, a former F.B.I. chief of staff, said background investigations were frequently reopened, but the bureau decided how to pursue new allegations.
Other Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, led by Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, sent a letter to Mr. McGahn and Christopher A. Wray, the F.B.I. director, on Monday providing a list of two dozen witnesses they believed must be interviewed for an inquiry to be credible.
In addition to the four witnesses already interviewed by the bureau, the list includes Dr. Blasey; Ms. Swetnick; Christopher Garrett, who dated Dr. Blasey in high school and introduced her to Judge Kavanaugh; and other high school and college friends of Judge Kavanaugh’s identified in press reports. The senators also said the bureau ought to examine employment records from a Safeway grocery store where Dr. Blasey said Mr. Judge worked around the time of her encounter with Judge Kavanaugh.
“We ask that you notify us of the scope of the investigation and what the White House directed the F.B.I. to investigate, as well as what steps the F.B.I. will be taking,” the senators wrote. “We also ask that, upon completion of your work, you provide copies of all witness interviews, a list of all witnesses who refused to cooperate in the Bureau’s investigation, and a full report to each member of the Senate.”
Mr. Coons, notably, was the only Democrat on the committee not to sign the letter.
In interviews, several former senior F.B.I. officials said that they could think of no previous instance when the White House restricted the bureau’s ability to interview potential witnesses during a background check. Chuck Rosenberg, who served as chief of staff under James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, said background investigations were frequently reopened, but that the bureau decides how to pursue new allegations.
“The White House normally tells the F.B.I. what issue to examine, but would not tell the F.B.I. how to examine it, or with whom they should speak,” he said. “It’s highly unusual — in fact, as far I know, uniquely so — for the F.B.I. to be directed to speak only to a limited number of designated people.”“The White House normally tells the F.B.I. what issue to examine, but would not tell the F.B.I. how to examine it, or with whom they should speak,” he said. “It’s highly unusual — in fact, as far I know, uniquely so — for the F.B.I. to be directed to speak only to a limited number of designated people.”
In his comments on Monday, Mr. Trump expressed indignation that Democrats were questioning Judge Kavanaugh’s youthful drinking and suggested some of them were being hypocritical because they themselves abuse alcohol. The F.B.I.’s security division is handling the background investigation, and the interviews will be given to the White House. Former officials said a short synopsis of the interviews might also be provided pointing out contradictions or commonalities in the interviews.
“I happen to know some United States senators, one who’s on the other side who’s pretty aggressive,” he said. “I‘ve seen that person in some very bad situations,” which he called “somewhat compromising.” Mr. Trump’s comments came as Senate Republicans released a five-page report challenging Dr. Blasey’s account. “A ‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove,” wrote Rachel Mitchell, the Arizona sex crimes prosecutor hired by Republicans to question Dr. Blasey during last week’s hearing. “But this case is even weaker than that.”
He would not identify whom he meant, but he did later single out Mr. Blumenthal, a favorite target, for misleading the public for years about his military service during the Vietnam War. “This guy lied when he was the attorney general of Connecticut,” Mr. Trump said. “He lied.” Noting that the other people in the house did not corroborate Dr. Blasey’s account, Ms. Mitchell added, “I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the committee.”
The president was referring to a 2010 article in The New York Times reporting that Mr. Blumenthal had told audiences that he had “served in Vietnam,” implying he had fought in the war, when in fact he served in the Marine Reserve in the United States at the time. Mr. Blumenthal noted that he did serve in “the Vietnam era” but said he took “full responsibility” for what he called “a few misplaced words.”
In attacking the senator, the president went beyond the known facts, asserting that Mr. Blumenthal had boasted of fighting in Da Nang. “We call him ‘Da Nang Richard,’” he said. “And now he’s up there talking like he’s holier than thou.” In fact, the Times article did not report that Mr. Blumenthal had ever claimed to fight in Da Nang or any other specific battle. Mr. Trump also said incorrectly that Mr. Blumenthal dropped out of his Senate race as a result, but won anyway; he never dropped out.
Mr. Trump’s comments came at the same time that Senate Republicans released a five-page report questioning the account of Dr. Blasey, the California university professor who also goes by her married name Ford. The report was written by Rachel Mitchell, the Arizona sex crimes prosecutor hired by Republicans to handle the questioning of Dr. Blasey and Judge Kavanaugh for them at last week’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.
Dr. Blasey said at the hearing that a drunken Judge Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed, groped her, tried to take her clothes off and covered her mouth when she tried to scream during a high school party in the 1980s.
“A ‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove,” Ms. Mitchell wrote. “But this case is even weaker than that.” The report noted that the other people Dr. Blasey identified being at the gathering did not remember anything like what she described and it pointed out other inconsistencies that it suggested undercut her credibility.
“I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the committee,” Ms. Mitchell wrote. “Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.”
The lack of corroboration has complicated Dr. Blasey’s story. Not only has Judge Kavanaugh denied her accusation, the other boy she identified being in the room at the time, Mr. Judge, has said that he did not remember anything matching her description and that he never saw Judge Kavanaugh mistreat women. Two other people Dr. Blasey recalled being elsewhere in the house then, Mr. Smyth and Ms. Keyser, also told the committee in written statements that they did not remember the party in question, although Ms. Keyser has separately told The Washington Post that she believed Dr. Blasey, a point not made in Ms. Mitchell’s report.
Ms. Mitchell also focused on other seemingly less significant distinctions, such as the fact that Dr. Blasey was described as afraid to fly but has nonetheless flown to Washington and other destinations.
Ms. Mitchell argued that Dr. Blasey was inconsistent because she testified that she told her husband she was the victim of “sexual assault” but told The Post that she had told him she was the victim of “physical abuse.”
Ms. Mitchell did not explain why she thought “sexual assault” and “physical abuse” were inconsistent and she incorrectly implied that Dr. Blasey used the phrase “physical abuse” when in fact those words were not in quotation marks in the Post article and were therefore the reporter’s paraphrase. Moreover, The Post attributed that to her husband, not to Dr. Blasey.
Ms. Mitchell also made much of the fact that Dr. Blasey said she could not remember whether a polygraph test that she took in August occurred on the day of her grandmother’s funeral or the day after, nor could she remember whether it was recorded. And she could not remember whether she showed notes from her therapist to a Post reporter or simply described them.