Brett Kavanaugh Cleared: It seems that the FBI’s investigations into a sexual assault leveled against US Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh have not corroborated the tabled allegations. This is if a statement from the White House is anything to go by.
The White House sent summaries of interviews conducted by the F.B.I. to the Senate early Thursday morning and expressed confidence that none of the information collected by agents should stand in the way of the Senate voting to confirm Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.
The material was conveyed to Capitol Hill in the middle of the night, just hours after Senate Republicans set the stage for a pair of votes later in the week to move to final approval of Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination. A statement issued by the White House around 2:30 a.m. said the F.B.I. had completed its work and that it represented an unprecedented look at a nominee.
“The White House has received the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s supplemental background investigation into Judge Kavanaugh, and it is being transmitted to the Senate,” Raj Shah, a White House spokesman, said in the statement , which was posted on Twitter.
“This is the last addition to the most comprehensive review of a Supreme Court nominee in history, which includes extensive hearings, multiple committee interviews, over 1,200 questions for the record and over a half million pages of documents,” he added . “With this additional information, the White House is fully confident the Senate will vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.”
The White House statement gave no further details about the material, but an official briefed on the F.B.I. review said the bureau contacted 10 people and interviewed nine of them. It was not clear why the 10th person was not interviewed. The White House concluded that the interviews did not corroborate sexual misconduct accusations against Judge Kavanaugh.
Senators will be permitted to review the materials, in what the F.B.I. calls 302 interview summaries, in a secured room at the Capitol starting on Thursday morning, or they can be briefed by a handful of staff members who are cleared to examine the material.
After a day of review, the Senate is on track to take an initial vote on Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation on Friday and possibly a final vote as early as Saturday.
Even before the material was sent to the Senate, Democrats complained that the F.B.I. investigation had been too narrow and failed to look extensively enough at the allegations lodged against Judge Kavanaugh, 53, a 12-year veteran of the appeals court in Washington.
President Trump lashed out at Christine Blasey Ford, the university professor who accused Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, Mr. Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, of sexual assault.
Oct. 3, 2018 • Image by Al Drago for The New York Times
Christine Blasey Ford, 51, a university professor in California, has accused him of sexually assaulting her when they were teenagers at a small party in high school, while Deborah Ramirez, 53, who works for a county housing department in Boulder, Colo., has alleged that he exposed his genitals to her during a party in college.
The F.B.I. initially interviewed four people identified by the Republican leadership of the Senate Judiciary Committee: Ms. Ramirez and three people whom Dr. Blasey recalled being in the house at the time of the party, Mark 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.
After complaints by Democrats and undecided Republicans, President Trump authorized the F.B.I. to go beyond those four interviews. But the F.B.I. has not publicly explained why it stopped after talking with just five more people. Ms. Ramirez and Senate Democrats separately gave the bureau the names of multiple people they thought could help shed light on the allegations.
Among those the bureau did not interview were Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Blasey. The White House said that was not necessary because they testified under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee for hours last week.
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 star known as Stormy Daniels who was paid hush money to keep her from discussing what she said was an extramarital affair with Mr. Trump before the 2016 presidential election. Senate Democrats have not focused as much on Ms. Swetnick’s assertions as on those of Dr. Blasey and Ms. Ramirez.
The official 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.
Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, warned before the interviews were received that they might be worthless because the investigation did not include interviews with Judge Kavanaugh, Dr. Blasey, or witnesses identified as corroborators by Ms. 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.?”
Senator Susan Collins said President Trump’s remarks were “just plain wrong.” Erin Schaff for The New York T
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.
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 on a background investigation have no such tools, and they get explicit marching orders through the White House Counsel’s Office.
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 potential 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 Democratic objections over Republican tactics, as well as condemnation by three influential Republicans of Mr. Trump for mocking Dr. Blasey.
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 Twitter post 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.”
