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/2018/10/03/us/politics/trump-republicans-kavanaugh-confirmation.html

The article has changed 14 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 5 Version 6
Swing Republican Senators Condemn Trump’s Mockery of Kavanaugh Accuser Senate Republicans Ready for Confirmation Vote, Ahead of F.B.I. Review
(about 3 hours later)
WASHINGTON — Three influential Republicans on Wednesday condemned President Trump for mocking a woman who accused Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh of sexual assault, adding more uncertainty to his Supreme Court confirmation fight as the Senate prepared to receive an F.B.I. investigation into the allegations late Wednesday night. WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans set the stage late Wednesday for a pair of late-week votes on the confirmation of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, pushing forward even as senators prepared to review an F.B.I. investigation into the allegations of sexual assault that could decide his fate.
As they were waiting, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee insinuated that previous F.B.I. background checks of Judge Kavanaugh had, in fact, turned up evidence of either inappropriate sexual behavior or alcohol abuse. A letter from Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, and other Democrats chastised committee Republicans for a tweet that said “nowhere” in the earlier F.B.I. checks “was there ever a whiff of ANY issue — at all — related in any way to inappropriate sexual behavior or alcohol abuse.” In a show of confidence, Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, walked to the floor of the Senate late Wednesday night — before the White House had even transferred the F.B.I.’s findings — to initiate a procedural vote on Friday and a final confirmation vote that could take place as soon as Saturday.
“There will be plenty of time for members to review and be briefed on the supplemental material before a Friday cloture vote,” he said in brief remarks.
But Mr. McConnell’s confidence belied yet another day of roiling fights that included new objections voiced by Democrats over the investigation itself and Republican tactics, as well as condemnation by three influential Republicans of Mr. Trump for mocking one of the women who have accused Judge Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct.
As they were waiting for the investigative files, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee insinuated that previous F.B.I. background checks of Judge Kavanaugh had, in fact, turned up evidence of either inappropriate sexual behavior or alcohol abuse. A letter from Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, and other Democrats chastised committee Republicans for a tweet that said “nowhere” in the earlier F.B.I. checks “was there ever a whiff of ANY issue — at all — related in any way to inappropriate sexual behavior or alcohol abuse.”
Information in the post “is not accurate,” the Democrats wrote.Information in the post “is not accurate,” the Democrats wrote.
“It is troubling that the committee majority has characterized information from Judge Kavanaugh’s confidential background information on Twitter,” they wrote, adding, “If the committee majority is going to violate that confidentiality and characterize this background information publicly, you must at least be honest about it.” “It is troubling that the committee majority has characterized information from Judge Kavanaugh’s confidential background information on Twitter,” they wrote, adding,
Republicans called the letter “more baseless innuendo and more false smears.”Republicans called the letter “more baseless innuendo and more false smears.”
The exchange was just part of the fierce jockeying between the parties ahead of the delivery of the F.B.I. interviews. Hours before the documents were expected to arrive, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, warned that the interview summaries might be worthless because the investigation did not include interviews with Judge Kavanaugh; his first accuser, Christine Blasey Ford; or witnesses identified as corroborators by his second accuser, a classmate at Yale named Deborah Ramirez. The exchange was just part of the fierce jockeying between the parties ahead of the delivery of the F.B.I. interviews. Hours before the documents were expected to arrive, Republicans stepped up efforts to question the credibility of the first accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, confronting her with a sworn statement from a former boyfriend who questioned assertions she made during an explosive public hearing last week.
“The White House confirmation that it will not allow the F.B.I. to interview Dr. Blasey Ford, Judge Kavanaugh or witnesses identified by Deborah Ramirez raises serious concerns that this is not a credible investigation and begs the question: What other restrictions has the White House placed on the F.B.I.?” she wrote. And Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, warned that the interview summaries might be worthless because the investigation did not include interviews with Judge Kavanaugh, Dr. Blasey, or witnesses identified as corroborators by his second accuser, a classmate at Yale named Deborah Ramirez.
Those restrictions, she wrote, raise “serious concerns that this is not a credible investigation and begs the question: What other restrictions has the White House placed on the F.B.I.?” she wrote.
But it was the three Republicans — Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine and Jeff Flake of Arizona — who injected the most uncertainty into the confirmation. Together they could determine whether Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed to the Supreme Court, and Mr. Trump’s mockery of Dr. Blasey at a Mississippi campaign rally on Tuesday only heightened tensions as senators prepared to read the highly anticipated summaries of the interviews.But it was the three Republicans — Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine and Jeff Flake of Arizona — who injected the most uncertainty into the confirmation. Together they could determine whether Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed to the Supreme Court, and Mr. Trump’s mockery of Dr. Blasey at a Mississippi campaign rally on Tuesday only heightened tensions as senators prepared to read the highly anticipated summaries of the interviews.
“I am taking everything into account,” Ms. Murkowski told reporters. “The president’s comments yesterday mocking Dr. Ford were wholly inappropriate and in my view unacceptable.”“I am taking everything into account,” Ms. Murkowski told reporters. “The president’s comments yesterday mocking Dr. Ford were wholly inappropriate and in my view unacceptable.”
On NBC’s “Today,” Mr. Flake said, “There is no time and no place for remarks like that, but to discuss something this sensitive at a political rally is just not right.”On NBC’s “Today,” Mr. Flake said, “There is no time and no place for remarks like that, but to discuss something this sensitive at a political rally is just not right.”
“I wish he hadn’t have done it, and I just say it’s kind of appalling,” Mr. Flake added.“I wish he hadn’t have done it, and I just say it’s kind of appalling,” Mr. Flake added.
And Ms. Collins told reporters in the Capitol the remarks were “just plain wrong.”And Ms. Collins told reporters in the Capitol the remarks were “just plain wrong.”
Ms. Collins did not indicate that the comments would affect her final vote on Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation, which could come as soon as late this week. Mr. Flake said they would not affect his: “No, you can’t blame or take it out on other people, the president’s insensitive remarks.”Ms. Collins did not indicate that the comments would affect her final vote on Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation, which could come as soon as late this week. Mr. Flake said they would not affect his: “No, you can’t blame or take it out on other people, the president’s insensitive remarks.”
Instead, the senators have said they are waiting for the results of a supplemental background investigation by the F.B.I. Senate officials were expecting to receive the investigative material late Wednesday, but said that no one from either party would look at it until Thursday morning. Because the White House was expected to produce just a single copy of the findings, Republicans and Democrats planned to take turns early Thursday morning looking at the files in a secured room in the Capitol, the officials said. Instead, the senators have said they will judge the results of the F.B.I.’s supplemental background investigation. Senate officials were expecting to receive the investigative material late Wednesday, but said that no one from either party would look at it until Thursday morning. Because the White House was expected to produce just a single copy of the findings, Republicans and Democrats planned to take turns early Thursday morning looking at the files in a secured room in the Capitol, the officials said.
Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, a member of the Republican leadership, said that if the file is indeed delivered on Wednesday, the Senate would most likely hold a procedural vote Friday and a final confirmation vote Saturday. That situation, he said, would be the “likely way to progress to the end of this and start healing up here.”
Senators from both parties said they would like to see the F.B.I.’s findings eventually made public in some form, but a previous agreement governing background investigations like the one into Judge Kavanaugh could make that legally difficult.Senators from both parties said they would like to see the F.B.I.’s findings eventually made public in some form, but a previous agreement governing background investigations like the one into Judge Kavanaugh could make that legally difficult.
A four-page memorandum between the Judiciary Committee and the White House precludes disclosure of contents of a background file by the committee, and lays out circumstances under which designated staff members or senators who disclose its contents without authorization can be punished.A four-page memorandum between the Judiciary Committee and the White House precludes disclosure of contents of a background file by the committee, and lays out circumstances under which designated staff members or senators who disclose its contents without authorization can be punished.
White House lawyers have concluded that a similar memorandum dealing with Privacy Act restrictions bars them from making the contents public either, or from commenting on them with any specificity.White House lawyers have concluded that a similar memorandum dealing with Privacy Act restrictions bars them from making the contents public either, or from commenting on them with any specificity.
An F.B.I. background investigation differs considerably from more familiar criminal investigations, and is based principally on gathering information to inform decisions by senators and the White House. In a criminal investigation, agents make crucial investigative decisions about scope and strategy, and they are able to use search warrants and subpoenas to compel evidence. Agents working a background investigation have no such tools, and they get explicit marching orders through the White House Counsel’s Office.An F.B.I. background investigation differs considerably from more familiar criminal investigations, and is based principally on gathering information to inform decisions by senators and the White House. In a criminal investigation, agents make crucial investigative decisions about scope and strategy, and they are able to use search warrants and subpoenas to compel evidence. Agents working a background investigation have no such tools, and they get explicit marching orders through the White House Counsel’s Office.
Mr. Trump’s remarks about Dr. Blasey dominated much of the day.Mr. Trump’s remarks about Dr. Blasey dominated much of the day.
Liberal opponents of Judge Kavanaugh turned Mr. Trump’s verbal assault on Dr. Blasey into an internet advertisement intended to pressure Ms. Collins, Mr. Flake and Ms. Murkowski.Liberal opponents of Judge Kavanaugh turned Mr. Trump’s verbal assault on Dr. Blasey into an internet advertisement intended to pressure Ms. Collins, Mr. Flake and Ms. Murkowski.
Democratic senators railed against his insensitivity. And Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, took to Twitter to “plead with all” to stop attacks and “destruction of” Dr. Blasey.Democratic senators railed against his insensitivity. And Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, took to Twitter to “plead with all” to stop attacks and “destruction of” Dr. Blasey.
But in a sign of how the Kavanaugh debate has shattered the longstanding rules of decorum in the Senate, the Senate Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer of New York, nearly accused his Republican counterpart, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, of lying after Mr. McConnell accused Democrats of trying to delay the confirmation vote. But in a sign of how the Kavanaugh debate has shattered the longstanding rules of decorum in the Senate, the Senate Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer of New York, nearly accused his Republican counterpart, Mr. McConnell, of lying after Mr. McConnell accused Democrats of trying to delay the confirmation vote.
“It is a blatant falsehood,” Mr. Schumer declared. “I’m so tempted to use the ‘L’ word — but he is my friend — to say the Democrats caused the delay.”“It is a blatant falsehood,” Mr. Schumer declared. “I’m so tempted to use the ‘L’ word — but he is my friend — to say the Democrats caused the delay.”
Mr. McConnell railed against protesters who have dogged him and other Republican senators.Mr. McConnell railed against protesters who have dogged him and other Republican senators.
“One of our colleagues and his family were effectively run out of a restaurant in recent days. Another reported having protesters physically block his car door,” he said.“One of our colleagues and his family were effectively run out of a restaurant in recent days. Another reported having protesters physically block his car door,” he said.
“I’m not suggesting we’re the victims here,” he went on. “But I want to make it clear to these people who are chasing my members around the hall here, or harassing them at the airports, or going to their homes. We will not be intimidated by these people.”“I’m not suggesting we’re the victims here,” he went on. “But I want to make it clear to these people who are chasing my members around the hall here, or harassing them at the airports, or going to their homes. We will not be intimidated by these people.”
Mr. Trump’s tone toward Dr. Blasey has shifted in the days since she first came forward with a story that Judge Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her more than 30 years ago when they were both teenagers. The president initially avoided criticizing her directly and said he would watch her testimony before the Judiciary Committee closely.Mr. Trump’s tone toward Dr. Blasey has shifted in the days since she first came forward with a story that Judge Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her more than 30 years ago when they were both teenagers. The president initially avoided criticizing her directly and said he would watch her testimony before the Judiciary Committee closely.
But on Tuesday, before a cheering crowd in Mississippi, he dispensed with that reserve, deriding Dr. Blasey’s emotional testimony of what happened that night.But on Tuesday, before a cheering crowd in Mississippi, he dispensed with that reserve, deriding Dr. Blasey’s emotional testimony of what happened that night.
“Thirty-six years ago this happened. I had one beer, right? I had one beer,” Mr. Trump said, imitating Dr. Blasey.“Thirty-six years ago this happened. I had one beer, right? I had one beer,” Mr. Trump said, imitating Dr. Blasey.
“How did you get home? I don’t remember,” he said. “How’d you get there? I don’t remember. Where is the place? I don’t remember. How many years ago was it? I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know.”“How did you get home? I don’t remember,” he said. “How’d you get there? I don’t remember. Where is the place? I don’t remember. How many years ago was it? I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know.”