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/2018/10/04/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court.html

The article has changed 13 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 7 Version 8
Two Key Republicans Signal Satisfaction With F.B.I.’s Kavanaugh Inquiry Senate Moves Toward Friday Showdown Vote on Kavanaugh’s Confirmation
(about 2 hours later)
WASHINGTON — Two key undecided Republican senators signaled Thursday that they are satisfied with the F.B.I.’s investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct against Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Senate Republican leaders were increasingly confident that he would be confirmed to the Supreme Court. WASHINGTON — The Senate, deeply divided over the results of an F.B.I. investigation into sexual misconduct allegations against Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, moved uneasily toward a Friday morning vote that will most likely determine whether President Trump’s nominee will reach the Supreme Court.
But one of two remaining undecided Democrats, Senator Heidi Heitkamp, who faces a difficult re-election race in her home state of North Dakota, said she would vote against the nomination. In a statement, she conjured the testimony of Christine Blasey Ford, who said Judge Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when she was 15. Republican leaders were increasingly confident that despite a barrage of accusations and an emotional public hearing just a week ago, the Senate will narrowly vote to cut off debate on Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination and move to a final confirmation on Saturday. Because Republicans changed Senate rules last year to end filibusters for Supreme Court nominees, Friday’s vote will need the same 50 senators that the final confirmation tally will need.
But with four senators still undecided — the Democrat Joe Manchin III of West Virginia and the Republicans Jeff Flake of Arizona, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation was still not assured.
Republicans said the F.B.I. had turned up no evidence to corroborate accusations of sexual assault and misconduct, and their chances were bolstered when two undecided Republicans — Mr. Flake and Ms. Collins — signaled on Thursday that they were satisfied with the F.B.I.’s investigation.
“It appears to be a very thorough investigation,” Ms. Collins said Thursday morning before spending hours with the documents.
But there were also reasons for caution. One of two Democrats who were undecided on Thursday morning, Senator Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, announced that she could not vote for Judge Kavanaugh, shrinking the pool of potential yes votes in a Senate divided 51 to 49 in favor of Republicans. Ms. Heitkamp, who faces a difficult re-election race, conjured the testimony of Christine Blasey Ford, who said Judge Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when she was 15.
“When I listened to Dr. Ford testify, I heard the voices of women I have known throughout my life who have similar stories of sexual assault and abuse,” Ms. Heitkamp said.“When I listened to Dr. Ford testify, I heard the voices of women I have known throughout my life who have similar stories of sexual assault and abuse,” Ms. Heitkamp said.
The two Republicans, Senators Jeff Flake of Arizona and Susan Collins of Maine, did not say that they will vote for Judge Kavanaugh, President Trump’s second Supreme Court nominee. But after a closed-door briefing in which Republicans were told that no witnesses corroborated the accounts of Judge Kavanaugh’s main accusers, both made positive remarks. A yes vote from both would secure Judge Kavanaugh’s seat on the highest court in the land. Mr. Flake, who said he had “seen no additional corroborating information” in the F.B.I. files, was nonetheless engaged in conversations with a Democratic colleague who helped force the F.B.I. investigation after last-minute negotiations last Friday.
“It appears to be a very thorough investigation, but I am going back later today to personally read the interviews,” Ms. Collins said. “That’s really all I have to say right now.” “The materials are what they are, and it’s now left to senators to reach their conclusions,” the Democrat, Senator Chris Coons of Delaware, told reporters ruefully earlier in the day.
[Lawmakers reviewed the F.B.I.’s findings from an inquiry into Judge Kavanaugh’s background. Here’s what senators from each side of the aisle had to say about it.] The senators made their views known during a tense and sometimes surreal day on Capitol Hill. Protesters massed near the Capitol and roamed the corridors of the Senate office buildings, pleading with Republican senators to vote no. Almost every undecided senator is receiving threats — at least one has been stalked at home — and many had police escorts.
Mr. Flake told reporters, “We’ve seen no additional corroborating information.” Throughout the day, Republicans and Democrats streamed in and out of a secure underground room, where they took turns viewing the lone copy of the F.B.I. report. Swarms of reporters and photographers waited outside. In the ornate Senate chamber, members began giving dramatically divergent speeches about Judge Kavanaugh in anticipation of the Friday vote.
The senators made their views known during a tense and sometimes surreal day Capitol Hill. Protesters massed near the Capitol and roamed the corridors of the Senate office buildings, pleading with Republican senators to vote no. Almost every undecided senator is getting threats — at least one has been stalked at home — and many had police escorts. By day’s end, two competing narratives had emerged about the 46 pages of interview documents, nine of them devoted to a single witness: Mark Judge, a friend and high school drinking buddy of Judge Kavanaugh. One of the accusers, Dr. Blasey, says Mr. Judge was present when the future judge tried to rape her during a house party when they were in high school, most likely in the summer of 1982.
Throughout the day, Republicans and Democrats streamed in an out of a secure underground room, where they took turns viewing the lone copy of the F.B.I. report. Swarms of reporters and photographers waited outside. In the ornate Senate chamber, members began giving speeches about Judge Kavanaugh in anticipation of a procedural vote Friday morning that will force the undecided senators to take a side. The F.B.I. also brought to the Capitol a towering stack of tips that the bureau had received but not followed up on.
By day’s end, two competing narratives had emerged about the 46 pages of interview documents, nine of them devoted to a single witness: Mark Judge, a friend and high school drinking buddy of Judge Kavanaugh. Dr. Blasey says Mr. Judge was present when the future judge tried to rape her during a high school gathering, most likely during in the summer of 1982.
While Republicans pressed on the idea that there was no corroborating evidence in the interviews, Democrats challenged the legitimacy of the investigation and the veracity of some of the witnesses. They said the F.B.I., at the White House’s direction, had left key witnesses off the interview list and left leads unexplored.While Republicans pressed on the idea that there was no corroborating evidence in the interviews, Democrats challenged the legitimacy of the investigation and the veracity of some of the witnesses. They said the F.B.I., at the White House’s direction, had left key witnesses off the interview list and left leads unexplored.
“What I can say is the most notable part of this report is what’s not in it,” Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, told reporters at a brief appearance in the Capitol. Referring to the White House, she added, “It now appears that they also blocked the F.B.I. from doing its job.” [Lawmakers reviewed the F.B.I.’s findings from an inquiry into Judge Kavanaugh’s background. Here’s what senators from each side of the aisle had to say about it.]
Ms. Feinstein was joined by Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, who echoed her complaints but suggested there is objectionable new information in the documents. He reiterated his call that the documents — “with proper redactions” — be made public. “Why shouldn’t all of America see the facts?” he asked. “What I can say is the most notable part of this report is what’s not in it,” Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, told reporters at a brief appearance at the Capitol. Referring to the White House, she added, “It now appears that they also blocked the F.B.I. from doing its job.”
Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington, said, “I can say that absolutely nothing I saw makes me believe Dr. Ford any less. And in fact, based on what I saw I am even more concerned about the veracity of some of what we heard from Judge Kavanaugh.” After viewing the documents, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, said he was left with “serious doubts” about Judge Kavanaugh’s truthfulness about his past and rejected Republican assertions that Dr. Blasey’s story had been refuted by the interviews.
But Republicans were determined to push forward to a key vote on Friday that would clear the last procedural hurdle before a final confirmation vote on Saturday. Most Republicans who left the secured briefing room said they were more confident supporting Judge Kavanaugh after the investigation. “To say that this investigation exonerates Judge Kavanaugh, or to say that this is a complete investigation, is patently false,” Mr. Schumer said.
[Struggling to keep up with the news on Judge Kavanaugh and the F.B.I. investigation? Catch up] But Republicans were determined to push forward. Most Republicans who left the secured briefing room said they were more confident supporting Judge Kavanaugh after the investigation.
“There’s nothing in it that we didn’t already know,” Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said in a statement Thursday. “These uncorroborated accusations have been unequivocally and repeatedly rejected by Judge Kavanaugh, and neither the Judiciary Committee nor the F.B.I. could locate any third parties who can attest to any of the allegations.” [Struggling to keep up with the news on Judge Kavanaugh and the F.B.I. investigation? Catch up.]
Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky accused Democrats of “partisan histrionics” and an “outrageous smear.” “There’s nothing in it that we didn’t already know,” Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said in a statement Thursday. “These uncorroborated accusations have been unequivocally and repeatedly rejected by Judge Kavanaugh, and neither the Judiciary Committee nor the F.B.I. could locate any third parties who can attest to any of the allegations.”
“For goodness sake this is the United States of America,” Mr. McConnell declared on the Senate floor. “Nobody is supposed to be guilty until proven innocent in this country. The Senate should not set a fundamentally un-American precedent here.” Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, accused Democrats of “partisan histrionics” and an “outrageous smear.”
Mr. Trump predicted on Twitter that the results, and Democratic attacks on Judge Kavanaugh, would have “an incredible upward impact on voters.” “For goodness’ sake, this is the United States of America,” Mr. McConnell declared on the Senate floor. “Nobody is supposed to be guilty until proven innocent in this country. The Senate should not set a fundamentally un-American precedent here.”
“The PEOPLE get it far better than the politicians,” he wrote. “Most importantly, this great life cannot be ruined by mean & despicable Democrats and totally uncorroborated allegations!” In a nod to the raw politics unleashed in recent weeks, Mr. Grassley acknowledged the Senate had hit “rock bottom” and pledged to begin repairs. “I would like to have the future mending things, so we can do things in a collegial way,” he said.
He added: Mr. Trump, for his part, alternated between cheering on Judge Kavanaugh and savaging Senate Democrats. “Due Process, Fairness and Common Sense are now on trial!” he wrote in one tweet.
The F.B.I.’s material was conveyed to Capitol Hill in the middle of the night Thursday, just hours after Senate Republicans set the stage for a pair of votes later in the week to approve Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation. A statement issued by the White House around 2:30 a.m. said the F.B.I. had completed its work less than a week after it began and that it represented an unprecedented look at a nominee. Lawyers for Dr. Blasey, 51, and for Deborah Ramirez, 54, who says Judge Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a party at Yale University, wrote to the F.B.I. on Thursday denouncing a “failure” to fully investigate their claims. Ms. Ramirez’s lawyer said his client had provided a list of more than 20 potential witnesses who he did not believe were interviewed. He also passed on multiple affidavits attesting to Ms. Ramirez’s claim.
Lawyers for Dr. Blasey and for Deborah Ramirez, who says Judge Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at college, wrote to the F.B.I. on Thursday decrying a “failure” to fully investigate their claims. Ms. Ramirez’s lawyer said his client had provided a list of more than 20 potential witnesses who he did not believe were interviewed.
“We can only conclude that the F.B.I. — or those controlling the investigation — did not want to learn the truth behind Ms. Ramirez’s allegation,” the lawyer, William Pittard, wrote.“We can only conclude that the F.B.I. — or those controlling the investigation — did not want to learn the truth behind Ms. Ramirez’s allegation,” the lawyer, William Pittard, wrote.
Dr. Blasey’s lawyers provided the F.B.I. with the names of eight people they argued should have been interviewed, in addition to their client, and offered to provide additional evidence, including medical records. They said on Thursday they got no response. Dr. Blasey’s lawyers provided the F.B.I. with the names of eight people they argued should have been interviewed, in addition to their client, and offered to provide additional evidence, including medical records. They said on Thursday that they got no response.
“The ‘investigation’ conducted over the past five days is a stain on the process, on the F.B.I. and on our American ideal of justice,” the lawyers wrote.“The ‘investigation’ conducted over the past five days is a stain on the process, on the F.B.I. and on our American ideal of justice,” the lawyers wrote.
An official who reviewed the F.B.I.’s material said the bureau contacted 10 people and interviewed nine of them. The 10th person refused to be interviewed. Those interviewed included Ms. Ramirez and three people whom Dr. Blasey recalled being in the house at the time of the party: Mr. Judge, P.J. Smyth and Leland Keyser. All three have said they did not remember the party or witness misbehavior by Judge Kavanaugh, although Ms. Keyser told The Washington Post that she believes Dr. Blasey. Republicans briefed on their F.B.I. interviews said they had said nothing to change that. An official who reviewed the F.B.I.’s material said the bureau contacted 10 people and interviewed nine of them. The 10th person refused to be interviewed. Those interviewed included Ms. Ramirez and three people Dr. Blasey recalled being in the house at the time of the party: Mr. Judge, P.J. Smyth and Leland Keyser. All three have said they did not remember the party or witness misbehavior by Judge Kavanaugh, although Ms. Keyser told The Washington Post that she believes Dr. Blasey. Republicans briefed on their F.B.I. interviews said those witnesses did not change their accounts.
Also interviewed were two other high school friends of Judge Kavanaugh: Chris Garrett and Tim Gaudette.Also interviewed were two other high school friends of Judge Kavanaugh: Chris Garrett and Tim Gaudette.
But senators will determine the fate of Judge Kavanaugh, 53, a 12-year veteran of the federal appeals court in Washington. The investigation’s principal audience was three independent-minded Republicans — Ms. Collins, Mr. Flake and Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — who took turns closely reviewing its contents on Thursday. One moderate Democrat up for re-election in a state won overwhelmingly by Mr. Trump, Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, also remains undecided, and he told reporters he will return to the secure room on Friday morning to finish reading the documents. But the four undecided senators will determine the fate of Judge Kavanaugh, 53, a 12-year veteran of the federal appeals court in Washington. Mr. Manchin said he would need to return on Friday before the vote to continue reviewing the F.B.I. summaries, but he said Ms. Heitkamp’s decision would not affect his.
Senators were permitted to review physical copies of the interview summaries in a secured room at the Capitol starting Thursday morning, after Republican and Democratic staff briefed lawmakers on the key findings. After a day of review, the Senate is on track to take an initial vote on Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation on Friday, with a final vote possible as early as Saturday, just a little more than a week later that Republican leaders had initially hoped to hold a final vote. The F.B.I. did not publicly explain why it stopped after talking with just nine people. The bureau apparently did not explore allegations by a third accuser, Julie Swetnick, who is represented by Michael Avenatti, a lawyer who also works for Stephanie Clifford, the former pornographic film actress known as Stormy Daniels who was paid hush money before the 2016 presidential election to keep her from discussing what she said was an extramarital affair with Mr. Trump.
Dr. Blasey, 51, a university professor in California, has accused him of sexually assaulting her when they were teenagers at a small party in high school. Ms. Ramirez, 53, who works for a county housing department in Boulder, Colo., alleged that he exposed his genitals to her during a party their freshman year at Yale. The official who reviewed the material said the bureau focused on the episodes described by Dr. Blasey and Ms. Ramirez but did not go out of its way to pursue broader questions about Judge Kavanaugh’s drinking during high school and college.
The F.B.I. has not publicly explained why it stopped after talking with just nine people. Among those the bureau did not interview were Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Blasey. A White House official said that was not necessary because they testified under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee for hours last week. The official said the bureau contacted one person who said he had heard about the episode involving Ms. Ramirez at Yale at the time, but that person did not witness it or talk with Ms. Ramirez. He identified the person he said had told him about the episode, but that person told the F.B.I. that he did not recall it, the official said.
The F.B.I. apparently did not explore allegations by a third accuser, Julie Swetnick, who is represented by Michael Avenatti, a lawyer who also works for Stephanie Clifford, the former pornographic film actress known as Stormy Daniels who was paid hush money before the 2016 presidential election to keep her from discussing what she said was an extramarital affair with Mr. Trump. Senate Democrats have not focused as much on Ms. Swetnick’s assertions as on those of Dr. Blasey and Ms. Ramirez.
The officials briefed on the review said the bureau focused on the incidents described by Dr. Blasey and Ms. Ramirez but did not go out of its way to pursue broader questions about Judge Kavanaugh’s drinking during high school and college. Judge Kavanaugh told the committee last week that while he sometimes drank too much beer, he never blacked out. Former classmates have since come forward to say he misled the committee about the extent of his drinking.
The official said the bureau contacted one person who said he had heard about the incident involving Ms. Ramirez at Yale University at the time, but that person did not witness it or talk with Ms. Ramirez. He identified the person he said had told him about the episode, but that person told the F.B.I. that he did not recall it, the official said.
Senators from both parties said they would like to see the F.B.I.’s work 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.
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.