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 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 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.
from Trends AtoZ https://ift.tt/2zSQAQg
via IFTTT
0 Comments