KAVANAUGH IS CONFIRMED 50 TO 48 -- A BLACK DAY FOR AMERICA
COMPILATION AND COMMENTARY
BY LUCY WARNER
OCTOBER 6, 2018


I AM PUTTING HERE ALL DETAIL ON THE CASE FOR FORD AND AGAINST KAVANAUGH THAT I HAVE COLLECTED. THE VOTING IS OVER, BUT DEMOCRAT SENATOR BLUMENTHAL OF CONNECTICUT PROMISED MORE ON THE SUBJECT LATER. THIS FILE IS A VAULT OF SORTS FOR MATERIAL OF FUTURE USE, ESPECIALLY SINCE THE DEMOCRATS ARE PROMISING MORE ON THE SUBJECT LATER.

THE NEXT STORY FROM POLITIFACT IS ABOUT TRUMP’S LATEST REALLY BIG LIE ON SEN. BLUMENTHAL. PERSONALLY, I CONSIDER A TRUMP ATTACK TO BE A COMPLIMENT. IT IS AN ANALYSIS AND PRIMARILY A REFUTATION OF TRUMP’S RAMPAGE AGAINST BLUMENTHAL WHEN HE CAME OUT IN FAVOR OF PROFESSOR CHRISTINE FORD. IT IS TRUE THAT BLUMENTHAL, LIKE TRUMP, TRIED TO STAY OUT OF THE MILITARY IN VIETNAM, BUT THE MOST EGREGIOUS PART OF THE TRUMP TWEET IS FALSE. HE DID NOT CRY WHEN DISCOVERED, NOT LIKE A BABY, OR ANY OTHER WAY.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/oct/04/donald-trump/donald-trumps-inventions-about-richard-blumenthal-/
Donald Trump's inventions about Richard Blumenthal and Vietnam
By Jon Greenberg on Thursday, October 4th, 2018 at 5:55 p.m.

At a rally in Southaven, Miss., President Donald Trump denounced Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., for his support of Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

Trump dubbed Blumenthal "Da Nang Richard," a reference to a battleground in the Vietnam War.

"This guy lied about his service," Trump said Oct. 2. "He didn't just say ‘Gee, I was in the service.’ No, he said, ‘I was in the Marines. Da Nang province. Soldiers dying left and right as we battled up the hill.’ This went on for 15 years when he was the attorney general of Connecticut. I thought he was a great war hero."

Trump continued.

"Here's a guy who was saying people were dying all around him. And he was never there. And then he cried when they caught him. He cried like a baby, like a baby."

In a companion fact-check, we looked at Trump’s claim that Blumenthal "lied" about his Vietnam service. (Mostly True.) Here, we look at the rest of Trump’s words, the ones about Da Nang and crying.

Trump is wrong that Blumenthal spun heroic war stories, and cried when he was called out for it.

Vietnam legacy
Both Blumenthal and Trump avoided serving in Vietnam. Trump benefited from four student deferments in college and one medical deferment (which Trump later said was for bone spurs in his heels), before being classified 4-F, unfit to serve.

While Trump never claimed to have been there, Blumenthal sometimes did.

Blumenthal enlisted in the Marine Corps Reserves in 1970. Until then, five deferments had kept him out of the war. Getting a coveted slot in the reserves reduced the chance of battlefield deployment. Blumenthal went through basic training and served six years in the Washington, D.C, area and Connecticut.

In 2010, the New York Times reported that at a 2008 ceremony for veterans and senior citizens, Blumenthal said, "We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam."

The newspaper provided another example from a 2003 event. "When we returned, we saw nothing like this," Blumenthal told military families. "Let us do better by this generation of men and women."

A day after the New York Times story, Blumenthal held a news conference in West Hartford, Conn.

"I routinely describe my pride at having served in the United States Marine Corps Reserves during the Vietnam era," Blumenthal said, flanked by veterans. "On a few occasions, I have misspoken about my service. And I regret that, and I take full responsibility."

There were no tears.

Some argued that there also was no apology. Blumenthal released a statement about a week later saying, "I have made mistakes and I am sorry."

We can find no record that Blumenthal ever described being in Da Nang or any other place in Vietnam. (And for the record, Da Nang is a city, not a province, although it serves the same administrative role as a province in Vietnamese governance.)

We reached out to the White House and did not hear back.

Our ruling
Trump said Blumenthal said he saw battle in Da Nang, and "then he cried when they caught him."

Blumenthal never spoke of fighting in Da Nang or anywhere else in Vietnam. He did not cry when he acknowledged his misleading statements.

Those elements are pure Trump invention. We rate this claim False.>


THE REST IS PERTINENT TO KAVANAUGH’S INNOCENCE OR GUILT OF A ROUGH, STUPID, DRUNKEN SEXUAL ASSAULT ON HIS 15 YEAR OLD CLASSMATE CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD.

FURTHER GAPS IN THE FBI INVESTIGATION

KAVANAUGH’S YALE ROOMMATE JAMES ROCHE, SAID: “IN CONTRAST, I CANNOT REMEMBER EVER HAVING A REASON TO DISTRUST ANYTHING, LARGE OR SMALL, THAT I HAVE HEARD FROM DEBBIE.”

IN THIS ARTICLE IS THE ONLY DESCRIPTION I’VE SEEN THAT COMES FROM A HIGH SCHOOL CLASSMATE, ON HIS BEING ONE OF A CROWD OF BULLIES BEDEVILING OTHER STUDENTS. HE SOUNDS LIKE THE TYPICAL ENTITLED YOUNG PEOPLE THAT I’VE SOMETIMES SEEN IN MY OWN LIFE. THE ONLY REPORT I HEARD IN MY HIGH SCHOOL DAYS OF REALLY WILD PARTIES WAS ONE OF KIDS “GOING IN AND OUT OF THE BEDROOMS.” THAT ONE INVOLVED NOT THE POOR KIDS WHO ARE MOST OFTEN SUSPECTED OF HAVING LOW MORALS – THEY AREN’T INVITED -- BUT THE WEALTHY ELITE INSTEAD. ONE OF THE WORST CULTURAL BIASES THAT WE HAVE IN THE USA IS THAT OF ECONOMIC CLASS.

https://www.thecut.com/2018/10/fbi-report-interview-kavanaugh-classmates.html
THE KAVANAUGH HEARINGS OCT. 4, 2018
All the People With Crucial Information About Kavanaugh the FBI Didn’t Interview
By Amanda Arnold@aMandolinz

PHOTOGRAPH -- Brett Kavanaugh. Photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images

In the midst of the FBI’s investigation into the sexual-assault allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, plenty of potential witnesses made themselves available. Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee produced a list of 24 people and entities who could possibly speak to the behavior of Kavanaugh; they could have also spoken to accusers Christine Blasey Ford, Deborah Ramirez, or Julie Swetnick. The SCOTUS nominee’s former roommate at Yale, who claimed Kavanaugh was “belligerent and aggressive when he was very drunk,” repeatedly requested to speak to the FBI, as did many of his former classmates. And Ford, who delivered a blistering testimony about her alleged sexual assault in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, spent the past seven days waiting for the bureau to officially interview her.

But at 2:30 a.m. on Thursday, according to a statement from the Committee, the FBI delivered to Capitol Hill a report deemed complete, despite missing numerous testimonies of key sources; the Washington Post has been able to confirm interviews with only six witnesses.

Time is running out: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell filed cloture on Wednesday evening, ending debate over the nomination, and the Senate will vote Friday on whether or not to confirm Kavanaugh. Meanwhile, many of Kavanaugh’s former classmates — many of whom dispute the nominee’s characterization of himself in college, but not all — are still attempting to reach the FBI.

Below, everyone the FBI did not interview over the sexual-assault allegations against Kavanaugh.

Christine Blasey Ford

Blasey Ford claims that Kavanaugh held her down and attempted to rape her at a high school party in 1982, a traumatic alleged incident that she bravely recounted last week; she didn’t want to come forward, as she felt “terrified,” but she felt it was her “civic duty” to speak out about the Kavanaugh she knew. Apparently, Blasey Ford’s testimony was enough for the FBI, as her lawyers say that the bureau never contacted them — a decision they found to be “profoundly disappointing.”

“An FBI supplemental background investigation that did not include an interview of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford — nor the witnesses who corroborate her testimony — cannot be called an investigation,” lawyers Debra Katz and Lisa Banks said in a statement released Wednesday night. “We are profoundly disappointed that, after the tremendous sacrifice she made in coming forward, those directing the FBI investigation were not interested in seeking the truth.”

Kavanaugh himself

The FBI also failed to interview the person whose fate will be determined by the outcome of the investigation: Kavanaugh, himself.

Twenty people with knowledge of Ramirez’s allegation

At a Yale dorm party in the early 1980s, Ramirez claims that Kavanaugh thrust his exposed penis in her face, causing her to touch it against her will. While Ramirez did not testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee like Ford, she confirmed to the New Yorker on Wednesday that the FBI had interviewed her. They had reportedly not, however, spoken to the list of more than 20 people who might have relevant information, and whom her team provided to FBI agents. As of Wednesday, Ramirez’s team said they had no knowledge of the FBI interviewing a single potential witness from the list, which Ramirez found concerning.

“Being told that these people haven’t even been contacted,” Ramirez told the New Yorker, “it’s very troubling to me.”

James Roche, Kavanaugh’s former Yale roommate

The day after Ramirez came forward, Kavanaugh’s former freshman roommate at Yale, James Roche, declared his support of and belief in Ramirez. Over the past few weeks, Roche has been relatively vocal about his attempts and failure to contact the FBI, and on Wednesday evening, he published an essay in Slate accusing Kavanaugh of lying under oath about his drinking. Were he to speak to the FBI, he would say:

Brett Kavanaugh stood up under oath and lied about his drinking and about the meaning of words in his yearbook. He did so baldly, without hesitation or reservation. In his words and his behavior, Judge Kavanaugh has shown contempt for the truth, for the process, for the rule of law, and for accountability. His willingness to lie to avoid embarrassment throws doubt on his denials about the larger questions of sexual assault. In contrast, I cannot remember ever having a reason to distrust anything, large or small, that I have heard from Debbie.

Numerous classmates of Kavanaugh from high school and college who have tried to reach out

Kenneth Appold — a former suitemate of Kavanaugh’s who told the New Yorker that he learned about the alleged incident with Ramirez just days after, in the winter of the 1983-84 school year — submitted a statement to the FBI through a web portal after he reached out to the bureau last weekend and received no response. Though he and Kavanaugh did not spend time together, he says there was also no “animosity” between them.

One of Kavanaugh’s former classmates from Georgetown Prep who requested anonymity told the New Yorker that he had never seen Kavanaugh physically harm another student, but recalled him doing “nothing to stop the physical and verbal abuse,” and said Kavanaugh “stood by and laughed at the victims.”

“That really, really struck a chord,” he said. “I can hear him laughing when someone was picked on right now.”

In his statement, the classmate also said that he recalled, “on multiple occasions, Brett Kavanaugh counting on his fingers how many kegs they had over the weekend.” The amount that he heard Kavanaugh describe, he said in the statement, “seemed to be an extreme amount of beer drinking for someone to consume at any age, let alone someone in high school.” He said that he also recalled Kavanaugh participating in general conversations “where the football players were bragging about their sexual conquests over the prior weekend.”


NOW FOR ANOTHER FROM THE CUT, OBVIOUSLY A LIBERAL OUTLET, BUT THIS IS ALMOST FUNNY, IF THE SUBJECT WEREN’T SO SERIOUS.

https://www.thecut.com/2018/10/site-fundraising-for-susan-collins-opponent-crashed-from-donations.html
THE KAVANAUGH HEARINGS 6:04 P.M.
OCTOBER 5, 2018
Susan Collins’s Enraging Speech Led Donors to Crash a Site Raising Money for Her Opponent
By Madeleine Aggeler@mmaggeler
</b>
PHOTOGRAPH -- Susan Collins. Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images
Senator Susan Collins of Maine is no longer undecided. In a speech from the Senate floor on Friday afternoon, the GOP senator said that she found Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony about her alleged assault by Brett Kavanaugh compelling, but that she would still be voting “yes” on Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination. Collins’s declaration incensed so many that a website crowdsourcing funds for her Democratic opponent crashed because it was inundated with donations.


Crowdpac
✔
@Crowdpac
Senator Susan Collins has people more motivated than we've ever seen before. Hold tight, we'll be back shortly.

3:55 PM - Oct 5, 2018
942
420 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Back in August activist Ady Barkan, the Maine People’s Alliance, and the Mainers for Accountable Leadership launched a crowdsourcing page on the website Crowdpac.com. The purpose of the page, called “Either Sen. Collins VOTES NO on Kavanaugh OR we fund her future opponent,” was to encourage Collins to vote against Kavanaugh’s confirmation — if she did, people who pledged money to the campaign would not be charged; if she didn’t, the money would all go to whoever ran as her Democratic opponent in 2020. The recommended pledge is $20.20.

(In a statement to Newsmax shortly after the page launched, Collins said the action was the equivalent of a bribe. A spokesperson for Crowdpac told Vox the site had been thoroughly vetted and approved by the Federal Elections Commission.)

The page raised over a million dollars in a month, receiving support from celebrities like Morgan Freeman, Alyssa Milano, and Debra Messing, but it was so overwhelmed with traffic during Collins’s speech on Friday that the whole site crashed. In a statement, Crowdpac CEO Gisel Kordestani wrote that their site received 90 times the average amount of traffic they see hourly, and that it overwhelmed their servers. The site was back up a couple of hours later.

As of Friday afternoon, the campaign has received over $2 million in donations from over 700,000 people. Brett Kavanaugh will, in all likelihood, be elected to the Supreme Court tomorrow evening.

Sources VOX

RELATED
Senate Cuts Off Debate on Kavanaugh, Making His Confirmation All But Certain
TAGS: POWER POLITICS THE KAVANAUGH HEARINGS SUSAN COLLINS


SOME OF KAVANAUGH’S VIEWS ARE EXPOSED HERE: ANTI-AFFIRMATIVE ACTION VIEWS, THE UNITARY EXECUTIVE. BOOKER AND HIRONO’S CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE -- #WhatAreTheyHiding. HIRONO: “JUDGE KAVANAUGH WRONGLY BELIEVES THAT NATIVE HAWAIIAN PROGRAMS ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY QUESTIONABLE.” ALSO MENTIONED ARE ROE V WADE AND WARRANTLESS SURVEILLANCE.

http://fortune.com/2018/09/06/brett-kavanaugh-leaked-documents/
Democratic Senators Reveal Committee Confidential Documents From Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh's Past
By RENAE REINTS September 6, 2018

Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) violated Senate rules in order to release committee classified documents pertaining to Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s work on racial profiling cases Thursday. The emails, Booker argued, “have nothing to do with national security” and therefore should be publicly available.

“I understand the penalty comes with potential ousting from the Senate,” said Booker Wednesday. “I openly invite and accept the consequences of my team releasing that email right now.”

Thursday morning, Booker followed through on his promise and released the four documents in question.


Cory Booker
✔
@CoryBooker
These are the 4 documents marked committee confidential that I brought up in my questioning of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh last night --> https://www.scribd.com/document/387988906/Booker-Confidential-Kavanaugh-Hearing …

11:04 AM - Sep 6, 2018

Booker Confidential - Kavanaugh Hearing
These are the 4 documents marked committee confidential that Senator Cory Booker brought up in his questioning of Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh on September 5, 2018.

scribd.com
65.6K
41.7K people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy

The emails within the documents show Kavanaugh identifying himself and a colleague as those who “generally favor effective security measures that are race-neutral.” He also criticizes Department of Transportation affirmative action regulations.

“The fundamental problem in this case is that these DOT regulations use a lot of legalisms and disguises to mask what is a naked racial set-aside*,” Kavanaugh wrote in 2001, adding that he expected the court’s conservative justices to “realize as much in short order and rule accordingly.”

[NAKED RACIAL SET-ASIDE* -- https://www.google.com/.... – “SET-ASIDES are a form of affirmative action used by governments in contracting government business; they include programs that typically designate a percentage of government contracts or funds (either for services or construction of public works) for minority-owned businesses.”][“Set Aside Contract Law and Legal Definition. A "set- aside" is a Federal contract designated for small business bidding only. It is the portion of a contract that is guaranteed to go to a minority owned company.”

Other communications show Kavanaugh questioning the “deliberate indifference standard” in racial profiling and the role of the president in Solicitor General* performance.

[SOLICITOR GENERAL* -- “https://www.google.com/.... -- the law officer directly below the attorney general in the US Department of Justice, responsible for arguing cases before the US Supreme Court, a position similar to solicitor general in some US states.”]

“In my view, the White House should not be involved in the SG’s formulation of a position in the first instance, but rather only in approving or disapproving what the SG proposes,” Kavanaugh wrote in a 2001 email. “This is admittedly not my ideal of how a unitary executive should work, but it is the real world, and there is a very strong tradition in the Executive Branch—and in the Congress and media—that the SG is independent and should come to his or her own independent conclusions about the constitutionality of laws.”

Lack of Transparency

Democrats were infuriated in the weeks leading up to Kavanaugh’s hearings due to the lack of documentation the National Archives provided on the judge’s history. A lawyer for former president George W. Bush provided 415,000 pages of documents last week, but the Trump administration decided to withhold 100,000 pages from the Senate under executive privilege.

The night before Kavanaugh’s hearings, Bush’s lawyer released another 42,000 pages of documentation, but they were all labeled committee confidential, meaning they couldn’t be released to the public or discussed during hearings.

Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), who voiced support for Booker’s actions, has asked why Kavanaugh is receiving special treatment in his hearing process.


Senator Dick Durbin
✔
@SenatorDurbin
For Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination, Republicans have decided to use a GOP lawyer & Kavanaugh’s former deputy, Bill Burck, to lead the document production process. Historically, this is done by the National Archives. Why is Kavanaugh getting special treatment? #WhatAreTheyHiding

11:06 AM - Sep 6, 2018
16.4K
9,127 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy

A Slew of Leaked Documents

With Booker’s act of civil disobedience providing more transparency to Kavanaugh’s hearings, many Democrats have rallied behind their colleague, some joining him in breaking Senate rules. Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI) also released committee confidential documents Thursday morning, writing on Twitter that “they show that Judge Kavanaugh wrongly believes that Native Hawaiian programs are Constitutionally questionable.”

View image on TwitterView image on Twitter

Senator Mazie Hirono
✔
@maziehirono
These are the docs Rs don't want you to see—because they show that Judge Kavanaugh wrongly believes that Native Hawaiian programs are Constitutionally questionable. I defy anyone reading this to be able to conclude that it should be deemed confidential in any way, shape, or form.

11:18 AM - Sep 6, 2018
20.7K
12.1K people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy

The New York Times also received committee confidential documents from an “unknown person” late Wednesday night, showing Kavanaugh discussing affirmative action and abortion. According to these documents, Kavanaugh said in 2003, “I am not sure that all legal scholars refer to [Roe v. Wade] as the settled law of the land,” but he did not give his personal stance on the matter.

Other communications obtained by the Times show Kavanaugh discussing topics related to the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance program just after the 9/11 attacks. In 2006, Kavanaugh claimed not to have heard anything about this program prior to its existence being leaked to the public, but the 2001 emails may prove otherwise, a discrepancy Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) brought up in Wednesday’s hearing.

As more sealed documents come into the public eye, details about Kavanaugh’s work under the Bush administration are coming to the forefront.


“PRESIDENT TRUMP’S DECISION TO STEP IN AT THE LAST MOMENT AND HIDE 100K PAGES OF JUDGE KAVANAUGH’S RECORDS FROM THE AMERICAN PUBLIC IS NOT ONLY UNPRECEDENTED IN THE HISTORY OF SCOTUS NOMS, IT HAS ALL THE MAKINGS OF A COVER UP.”

YES, THIS ARTICLE IS A MONTH AND SEVERAL DAYS OLD, BUT IT HITS AT SOMETHING THAT I THINK SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHANGED BEFORE THERE WAS A HEARING, BEFORE THERE WAS AN FBI INVESTIGATION, AND BEFORE KAVANAUGH’S CANDIDACY WAS EVEN ACCEPTED. HIS RECORD SHOULD BE OPENED FULLY FOR EXAMINATION. WHEN 9/10 OF THE PERTINENT EVIDENCE IS WITHHELD FROM CONSIDERATION, THERE SHOULD BE NO JUDGMENT MADE. IF THE SENATE HAD WITHHELD THE INFORMATION RATHER THAN THE WHITE HOUSE, THE SAME SHOULD BE TRUE. SENATORS WHO DON’T ACT FAIRLY SHOULD ALSO BE OPEN TO IMPEACHMENT BASED ON THEIR OFFICIAL BEHAVIOR IN THE SENATE ACTIONS.

ALSO, IF THE PUBLIC HAS A VOICE IN THIS, AND WE DO ELECT THE SENATORS, THEN OUR INPUT NEEDS TO BE BUILT INTO THE LAWMAKERS’ DECISIONS. THE PRESIDENT – IN THIS CASE CITING “EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE” -- SHOULD NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO WITHHOLD SO MUCH INFORMATION (OR ANY, FOR THAT MATTER) AND THE SENATE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO SOLICIT COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON EACH DECISION, SO THAT A FAIR AND COMPLETE HEARING FOR THE ACCUSER WOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN. ALL THOSE THINGS JUST DIDN’T HAPPEN HERE. I HOPE THE PUBLIC, WITH THE AID OF THE FREE PRESS AND THE LEGAL COMMUNITY, WILL REOPEN THE MATTER OF KAVANAUGH’S DRINKING, LYING AND BULLYING SO THAT HIS POSITION ON THE SUPREME COURT, IF THAT DOES OCCUR TOMORROW MORNING, CAN BE CHALLENGED.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/01/us/politics/kavanaugh-records.html
White House Withholds 100,000 Pages of Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s Records
By Sheryl Gay Stolberg
Sept. 1, 2018

PHOTOGRAPH -- Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings are scheduled to begin on Tuesday.CreditCreditErin Schaff for The New York Times

WASHINGTON — The Trump White House, citing executive privilege, is withholding from the Senate more than 100,000 pages of records from Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh’s time as a lawyer in the administration of former President George W. Bush.

The decision, disclosed in a letter that a lawyer for Mr. Bush sent on Friday to Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, comes just days before the start of Judge Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings on Tuesday. It drew condemnation from Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader.

“We’re witnessing a Friday night document massacre,” Mr. Schumer wrote on Twitter on Saturday. “President Trump’s decision to step in at the last moment and hide 100k pages of Judge Kavanaugh’s records from the American public is not only unprecedented in the history of SCOTUS noms, it has all the makings of a cover up.”

Democrats and Republicans have been arguing for weeks over access to documents relating to Judge Kavanaugh’s time working for Mr. Bush. Democrats say that Republicans are blocking access to the documents as part of an effort to ram through the nomination without proper scrutiny.

The bulk of the records being withheld “reflect deliberations and candid advice concerning the selection and nomination of judicial candidates, the confidentiality of which is critical to any president’s ability to carry out this core constitutional executive function,” wrote Mr. Bush’s lawyer, William A. Burck.

Video -- How Supreme Court Confirmations Became Partisan Spectacles 4:45

CAPTION -- Confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominees didn’t always exist. But the 19th Amendment, school desegregation and television all contributed to major changes in the process.Published OnSept. 4, 2018CreditCreditImage by Erin Schaff for The New York Times

They also reflect “advice submitted directly to President Bush,” Mr. Burck wrote, as well as communications between White House staff members about their discussions with Mr. Bush, and other internal deliberations.

Judge Kavanaugh spent two years, from 2001 to 2003, in the White House Counsel’s Office, and later served as staff secretary to the president, a role that required him to vet documents before they reached the president’s desk. None of the staff secretary records have been released because Mr. Grassley did not request them — another point of contention between Republicans and Democrats.

Mr. Burck has been heading a team of dozens of lawyers who are reviewing tens of thousands of pages of the Bush White House records, which are held by the National Archives and subject to release under the Presidential Records Act. But the White House, after consulting with the Justice Department, decided that certain records should not be released, Mr. Burck wrote.

Senate Democrats said this was the first time that a sitting president has exerted executive privilege under the Presidential Records Act in order to prevent documents from going to Congress during a Supreme Court confirmation process. Mr. Schumer issued his angry tweets alleging a holiday weekend cover-up just minutes before the start of the funeral for his Senate colleague John McCain, which Mr. Schumer attended.

Presidents have claimed executive privilege under the Constitution to prevent other branches of government from gaining access to certain internal executive branch information, so that the president and top White House officials can communicate freely with one another.

So far, Mr. Burck said, he has produced more than 415,000 pages of records to the committee, adding, “We believe we have faithfully followed President Bush’s instruction to review these documents accurately, neutrally, expeditiously and, with a presumption of disclosure.”

A version of this article appears in print on Sept. 2, 2018, on Page A19 of the New York edition with the headline: Executive Privilege Is Cited to Keep Records Sealed. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe


IF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IS THE MECHANISM OF A COVERUP, CAN IT BE QUESTIONED AND CURTAILED? CAN WE REMOVE “EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE” FROM THE CONSTITUTION AS A CONCEPT, SINCE IT SEEMS SO OFTEN TO BE AN ABUSE OF POWER? DOES THE PRESIDENT RULE, OR SERVE? I DON’T AGREE WITH THE CONSERVATIVE PARTS OF THE CITIZENRY IN THEIR VIEW THAT OUR GOVERNMENT IS TOO LARGE. I JUST THINK THAT IT CAN BEHAVE WITH MORE POWER THAN IS GOOD.

AS FOR OUR AMERICAN PHILOSOPHY, JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS TRADITIONAL SHOULDN’T MEAN THAT IT CAN’T BE CHANGED, TOTALLY REVISED OR EVEN ELIMINATED. I WOULD ELIMINATE “PRIVILEGE” IN THESE AND IN OTHER CASES. THE PROBLEM WITH POLICE SHOOTINGS OF UNARMED PEOPLE IS THE UNWRITTEN AND UNSPOKEN PRIVILEGE THAT ALLOWS THAT TO GO UNQUESTIONED.

THE ADVANTAGES HANDED OUT IN COURTS TO THE WEALTHY OVER THE POOR IS ANOTHER SUCH UNJUSTIFIABLE PRACTICE. THE TERM “WHITE PRIVILEGE” IS IN THE SAME CATEGORY OF THINGS. THEY ALL LEAD TO UNFAIRNESS AND CORRUPTION, AND SHOULDN’T BE CONSIDERED GROUNDS FOR GREATER PUBLIC ESTEEM, BUT RATHER FOR SUSPICION.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/15/us/politics/executive-privilege-sessions-trump.html?module=inline
Explaining Executive Privilege and Sessions’s Refusal to Answer Questions
By Charlie Savage
June 15, 2017

PHOTOGRAPH -- Attorney General Jeff Sessions testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday.CreditCreditEric Thayer for The New York Times

WASHINGTON — Attorney General Jeff Sessions repeatedly refused to answer senators’ questions on Tuesday about his conversations with President Trump, even though Mr. Trump had not asserted executive privilege to keep them secret. That raises questions about whether Mr. Sessions had any legal basis to stonewall Congress.

In testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mr. Sessions argued that it would be “inappropriate” for him to talk about such confidential discussions because the president might choose to assert the privilege in the future.

“I’m protecting the president’s constitutional right by not giving it away before he has a chance to view it and weigh it,” he said.

Before the same panel last week, Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence, and Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency, gave a similar rationale for not answering questions.

The pattern has angered Democrats, who argue that the officials are improperly impeding Congress’s oversight investigation.

Here are several issues raised by the dispute.

What is executive privilege?

Presidents have claimed the power under the Constitution to prevent the other branches of the government from gaining access to certain internal executive branch information, so that, among other things, the president and top White House aides can communicate confidentially with other officials. The idea is to avoid a chilling effect on the candor of the advice the president receives about his constitutional duties.

Normally, a witness who refuses to answer a question at a congressional hearing can be held in contempt of Congress and face criminal prosecution. Congress could also file a lawsuit asking a judge to order the witness to provide the information, raising the further possibility of being imprisoned for contempt of court. But a valid assertion of executive privilege would provide a lawful basis to decline to answer.

How is the privilege activated?

The president asserts that particular information is covered by the privilege. This was the core of the complaint some lawmakers made against Mr. Sessions on Tuesday: Internal executive branch information is not legally shielded from Congress by default; rather, the president chooses whether to invoke it in a particular instance.

Do officials have a legal right to avoid providing potentially privileged information?

No, but Congress rarely demands immediate answers when an objection arises, either. In practice, the executive branch and Congress generally negotiate over access to information that the president believes he has a constitutional right to keep confidential and that lawmakers believe falls within their own constitutional powers to carry out their oversight responsibilities.

Generally, such disputes have been resolved with some accommodation that falls short of a definitive court ruling, so this is a “constitutional gray area,” said Mark J. Rozell, a George Mason University professor who has written books about executive privilege.

Previous executive branch officials of both parties have withheld information requested by Congress in the same manner.

During President Barack Obama’s administration, when the Senate Intelligence Committee investigated the Central Intelligence Agency’s post-Sept. 11 torture program, the C.I.A. did not turn over nearly 10,000 pages of documents sought by Senate investigators because they showed potentially privileged communications with George W. Bush’s White House, like notes of briefings and Situation Room meetings. Instead, it held them back for years as a topic for future negotiations.

Eventually, the committee decided to finish its report without gaining access to those documents, even though Mr. Obama had never asserted executive privilege.

Is there a Justice Department ‘policy’ about this?

Mr. Sessions said there was “a longstanding policy of the Department of Justice not to comment on conversations that the attorney general has had with the president” and told several senators that he believed those rules were in writing. But as senators pressed him for details about a written directive, it appeared that he was instead describing a general practice.

After the hearing, the Justice Department circulated two Reagan-era documents that it said laid out the basis for a historical, executive-branch-wide practice of declining to answer congressional questions about confidential conversations with the president.

The first was an August 1982 memo by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel titled “Confidentiality of the Attorney General’s Communications in Counseling the President.” It laid out constitutional arguments for why such communications are subject to a potential claim of executive privilege, but did not specifically address whether officials may decline to answer lawmakers’ questions without an assertion by the president.

The other was a November 1982 White House directive to the heads of all executive branch departments and agencies, signed by President Ronald Reagan, which laid out procedures for “this administration” governing congressional requests for information. It said that if Congress requested information that might be subject to executive privilege, officials should “request the congressional body to hold its request in abeyance” pending a final presidential decision on whether to assert the privilege.

What about subpoenas?

In theory, Senate rules do not require subpoenas to open a contempt-of-Congress action, said Michael Davidson, who was the top lawyer for the Senate from 1979 to 1995 and later served as the top lawyer to the Senate Intelligence Committee until his retirement in 2011.

Because even voluntary witnesses swear to tell “the whole truth” when they are sworn in, he said, a frustrated lawmaker who wanted to pursue the matter immediately could have asked the committee chairman, Senator Richard M. Burr, Republican of North Carolina, to overrule Mr. Sessions’s objection and order him to answer the questions. But in practice, Mr. Davidson said, Congress has not acted like that. Every enforcement proceeding in which the Senate went to court during his time as legal counsel, he said, involved a subpoena.

And from the executive branch’s perspective, a subpoena may be required, according to a June 1989 Office of Legal Counsel memorandum titled “Congressional Requests for Confidential Executive Branch Information.”

“Only when the accommodation process fails to resolve a dispute and a subpoena is issued does it become necessary for the president to consider asserting executive privilege,” William P. Barr, then the assistant attorney general, wrote in the memo.

Follow Charlie Savage on Twitter @charlie_savage.

Get politics and Washington news updates via Facebook, Twitter and in the Morning Briefing newsletter.

A version of this article appears in print on June 16, 2017, on Page A18 of the New York edition with the headline: On Executive Privilege and Sessions’s Refusal to Answer Questions. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe


KAVANAUGH MAY BE IN THE SUPREME COURT NOW, BUT HIS SEAMY PAST AND HIS EXTREMELY BRITTLE PERSONALITY WILL NOT BE FORGOTTEN. HE AND THE REPUBLICANS WILL SUFFER IN THE POLLS, I HAVE NO DOUBT.

THIS IS AN ARTICLE OF BEHIND HAND WHISPERS, IN THAT CHARACTERS ARE NOT IDENTIFIED, AND CHOPPED UP LOGICAL SEQUENCES MAKE EVEN FOLLOWING THE NARRATIVE MORE DIFFICULT THAN IT NEEDS TO BE. IT DOES, HOWEVER CONCERN A SET OF IMPORTANT QUESTIONS SHARED AMONG YALE CLASSMATES ABOUT WHAT SEEMS TO BE AN ATTEMPT BY KAVANAUGH TO SILENCE DEBORAH RAMIREZ BEFORE THE NEW YORKER STORY EVEN APPEARED IN THE NEWS. VERY SUSPICIOUS! THE FBI’S FAILURE TO FOLLOW UP IS EVEN MORE DISTURBING TO ME.

THEIR ROLE IN THIS WHOLE THING HAS BEEN DISCONCERTING, GIVEN THE DEGREE TO WHICH THE WHOLE COUNTRY DEPENDS ON THE FAIRNESS, THOROUGHNESS AND APOLITICAL HANDLING OF INQUIRIES FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BECOME WIDELY KNOWN. I AM REVISING MY OPINION OF THE FBI. COMEY’S CONVENIENTLY TIMED LEAKING OF THE HILLARY CLINTON EMAIL INFORMATION WAS EQUALLY OUT OF SYNCH WITH THE CONCEPT OF CONFIDENTIALITY AND NONPARTISAN BEHAVIOR. THEY AREN’T, IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING, THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS’S HUNTING HOUNDS, BUT AN INDEPENDENT BODY WITH INTEGRITY. MAYBE THAT IS CHANGING, OR MAYBE IT WAS ALWAYS A FICTION.

I’M AFRAID WE MAY BE AT THE END OF OUR FIRST TWO HUNDRED YEARS OF DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT. OF COURSE, THIS IS WHY THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS QUICK TO JUMP IN AND SAY THAT THE USA IS NOT A “DEMOCRACY,” BUT A REPUBLIC. IN OTHER WORDS, THE PEOPLE MAY NOT AND SHOULD NOT EXERCISE MUCH DIRECT CONTROL OVER WHAT GOES ON. I DISAGREE WITH THAT. IF THAT IS THE WAY THE CONSTITUTION IS SET UP, THEN THAT IS ONE OF A NUMBER OF THINGS ABOUT IT THAT NEED TO BE REBALANCED AND REWRITTEN. THAT’S MY VIEW AS A CONCERNED CITIZEN. I BELIEVE THAT WHERE THERE’S NO TRANSPARENCY THERE CAN BE NO GUARANTEE OF HONESTY, EITHER.

WHO ARE THE CHARACTERS IN THIS PLAY?

*JEN KLAUS IS ONE OF RAMIREZ’S YALE ROOMMATES.
*GEORGE HARTMANN IS A PRESS SECRETARY FOR THE SENATE. HE DENIES KLAUS’ STATEMENT THAT THE HE WAS TRYING TO INFLUENCE A WITNESS BY SUGGESTING A KAVANAUGH DEFENSE OF MISTAKEN IDENTITY, AND IMPLIES PURPOSEFUL DECEIT BY KLAUS.
*KATHY CHARLTON IS AN UNIDENTIFIED CLASSMATE OF KAVANAUGH’S. GOOGLE IDENTIFIES A KATHY CHARLTON AS A LAWYER NAMED ON WEBSITE https://www.hq-law.com/attorneys/milwaukee-attorneys/katherine-charlton/. UNFORTUNATELY, THERE ARE FIVE OR SIX OTHERS BY THAT NAME AS WELL, THOUGH.
*KAVANAUGH DENIES TRYING TO SILENCE THE NEWS STORY; OR PERHAPS THE WRITER MEANS THAT HE WAS TRYING TO DENY THE CLAIM HE WAS CONTACTING POSSIBLE WITNESSES OF THE SEXUAL BEHAVIOR OF THIRTY SOME YEARS AGO, IN ORDER TO ENCOURAGE THEM TO SAY NOTHING DAMAGING ABOUT HIM IF THEY ARE CONTACTED BY THE PRESS.


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/battle-over-accusations-goes-kavanaugh-nomination-advances-n917136
The battle over accusations goes on as Kavanaugh nomination advances
Kavanaugh classmates ignored by the FBI speak out, reveal new text message.
by Heidi Przybyla / Oct.05.2018 / 5:32 PM EDT

PHOTOGRAPH -- Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and his wife Ashley Estes Kavanaugh depart after testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington on Sept. 27, 2018.J. Scott Applewhite / AP file

WASHINGTON — As Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, closed out his executive summary of allegations of sexual misconduct against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, his staff called a former roommate of Deborah Ramirez, the Yale classmate who has accused Kavanaugh of exposing himself to her.

Jen Klaus, the former roommate, told NBC News that committee staff members called her at 4:30 p.m. Thursday, put her on speakerphone and asked about Ramirez’s drinking habits, whether there was a Yale student known for dropping his pants and the party culture at Yale. She says they suggested the allegation was a case of mistaken identity.

“It just gave me the impression they were suggesting perhaps it was (another classmate) who threw his penis in her face instead of Brett. Why would they be asking me this?” said Klaus, who now resides in Brookline, Massachusetts.

In a statement to NBC News, the committee's press secretary, George Hartmann, said that "no suggestion of mistaken identity was made. The committee has received numerous tips and asked Ms. Klaus for information she could provide one way or the other."

"To say otherwise would not only be inaccurate, it would also call into question the motivations of the individual doing so," Hartmann added.

VIDEO -- Senate Democrats argue against Kavanaugh confirmation in debate ahead of vote
OCT.06.2018 8:06

The FBI's supplemental background investigation into allegations against Kavanaugh included interviews with nine individuals and the results were sent to the White House and Senate Thursday morning. Grassley's summary said that committee staffers talked to 35 individuals.

Kavanaugh has strongly denied the allegations and his confirmation appears to have the votes to pass on Saturday after Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., said they would support him late Friday afternoon.

Two former Yale classmates say they have made several attempts to share text messages raising questions about whether Kavanaugh tried to squash the New Yorker story that made Ramirez's accusations public — and say the FBI did not respond to their calls and written submissions to its web portal.

The text messages involve one potential eyewitness to the incident and the wife of another potential eyewitness.

The texts are a conversation between Kathy Charlton* and a mutual friend of Kavanaugh's who, NBC has confirmed, was identified to the FBI by Ramirez as an eyewitness to the incident. NBC News has received no response to multiple attempts to reach the alleged eyewitness for comment.

The story detailing Ramirez’s accusation was published in The New Yorker on Sept. 23. Charlton told NBC News that, in a phone conversation three days earlier, the former classmate told her Kavanaugh had called him and advised him not to say anything "bad" if the press were to call.

Then on September 21, according to the texts, that same person sent Charlton a text accusing her of disclosing their conversation to a reporter. “Hellllllooooo. Don’t F****** TELL PEOPLE BRETT GOT IN TOUCH WITH ME!!! I TOLD YOU AT THE TIME THAT WAS IN CONFIDENCE!!!”

“From the content and all capital letters of the text (the alleged witness) seemed to feel that there was a great deal at stake for Brett if Brett’s fears of exposure ever became public,” Charlton wrote in a statement to the FBI shared with Grassley’s office on Oct. 4.

Charlton is not the only former Yale classmate of Kavanaugh's to indicate the nominee and his team were active in reaching out to their social group ahead of publication of The New Yorker story. NBC News has reported that a memo to the FBI, drafted by Kerry Berchem, questioned whether Kavanaugh “and/or” his friends “may have initiated an anticipatory narrative” as early as July to “conceal or discredit” Ramirez.

Both women stressed that they don't know the whole story and are drawing no conclusions but are baffled as to why they were never interviewed by the FBI or Judiciary staff.

Both say they have made numerous attempts to reach the FBI. Thursday night, after Grassley pronounced the investigation complete, Berchem sent her third email to Mike Davis, the chief counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee, pleading for him speak with her. Similar to his responses to previous emails, Davis noted that her information was forwarded to the investigative staff. Berchem shared the exchange with NBC News.

Hartmann, the committee press secretary, said "it would be a lie to say committee investigators did not interview Ms. Berchem. Committee investigators spoke at length with Ms. Berchem on Oct. 3. Committee investigators also extensively reviewed information provided by Ms. Berchem."

Berchem told NBC News that she has had one call with a committee staff member to whom she gave a brief overview of her concerns but was not interviewed.

Hartmann also said the committee received correspondence from Charlton. "In her letter, Ms. Charlton asked the committee to review her exchange, which the committee did, and said the committee should feel free to contact her if there were any questions," Hartmann said. "After evaluating the information provided, the committee’s professional investigators did not see a need for a follow-up call."

THE TEXTS
The efforts by the two women have continued even as Republicans like Grassley insist that the investigation of the accusations against Kavanaugh is complete.

Berchem sent to the FBI some of 51 screen shots of text messages she exchanged with her friend, Karen Yarasavage, the wife of Kevin Genda, another alum Ramirez identified as an eyewitness, to explain why Kavanaugh and his friends should be asked whether they anticipated a story about Ramirez as early as July.

Ramirez identified to the FBI Dave Todd, Kevin Genda and Dave White as eyewitnesses who were in the room during the alleged incident, according to a source familiar with the investigation.

In July, as the Washington Post quietly researched a story on a woman accusing Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct while they were in high school, Berchem said she received what she presumed was a misfired text from Yarasavage.

The text suggests that Kavanaugh’s closest Yale friends and those Ramirez later identified as witnesses were searching for an old 1997 wedding party photo that includes themselves, as well as Ramirez and Kavanaugh, all smiling together.

Protester who confronted Flake says 'opportunity' for right decision still available
OCT.05.201803:47
The July 16 text notes that “Whitey,” or Dave White, sent a 1997 wedding party photo to the Washington Post. Berchem is not friends with White and assumed it was mistakenly sent to her. The text came 10 days after Dr. Ford sent an anonymous tip to the Washington Post’s confidential tip line, according to her testimony before the Senate.

“Why was the 1997 photo retrieved and distributed to the Washington Post at that time? Debbie's allegations against Brett do not become public until September 23rd,” writes Berchem in her memo.

The Post did not publish its piece identifying Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the accuser until September.

In July, Yarasavage also began texting about an old classmate whom neither was or is close to, Rick F. On July 16, Yarasavage texted Berchem noting she found a “box of college photos. Rick (F) etc.”

"Neither of us knew him well in college. Does she actually have photos of him?” Berchem asked in her memo.

On Sept. 23, the day the New Yorker published Ramirez’s story accusing Kavanaugh of exposing himself, Yarasavage returned to Rick F.: “I thought I heard (he) pulled out his unit once. Could she be so wildly mistaken??”

The subject, Rick, hadn’t been at Yale in the 1983-84 school year. “She concludes by appearing to insinuate that Ms. Ramirez's memory may have been adversely impacted by problems with her father,” writes Berchem.

On the same day, Yarasavage also texted Berchem that she was being contacted by “Brett’s guy” and that “Brett asked me to go on the record” regarding the New Yorker piece.

“I believe that these September 23rd texts raise factual issues, such as the contents of the conversation if it occurred between Judge Kavanaugh and why (Yarasavage) seemed to be encouraging a false ‘mistaken identity’ theory involving someone who wasn't at Yale at the time of the alleged incident – that might merit the FBI’s further investigation,” wrote Berchem. NBC News has received no response to attempts to contact Yarasavage.

ContributorsLeigh Ann Caldwell


WILL WE HAVE TO START CALLING THE FBI “THE TOUCHABLES” IN THE FUTURE? I REALLY DO HATE HAVING NOBODY LEFT TO TRUST.

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-news/kavanaugh-fbi-investigation-report-senate-review-today-2018-10-04-live-updates/
CBS NEWS October 4, 2018, 11:36 AM
Grassley, McConnell claim nothing new in FBI Kavanaugh report, as senators review single copy -- live updates
Reporting by CBS News' Kathryn Watson, Alan He, John Nolen and Emily Tillett

VIDEO – SENATOR SCHUMER CRITICIZES THE ONE GIGANTIC COPY OF THE FBI REPORT, AND THE LIMITED ACCESS THAT DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN GIVEN FOR READING IT

Senators are taking turns reviewing the FBI's report into Judge Brett Kavanaugh's background following widespread demands for additional investigations into allegations of sexual assault. The review comes one day before a deadline set by the Senate Judiciary Committee and President Trump.

The White House, and then the Senate Judiciary Committee, received the report early Thursday morning. Senate Judiciary Committee Chuck Grassley claimed the report reveals nothing the committee did not already know, and reveals no "contemporaneous evidence" to support the allegations.

While senators will only have one copy of the report to review in a secure room in the basement of the U.S. Capitol, the White House says that senators have "ample time" to review the seventh background inquiry into Kavanaugh's record. Senators on both sides are expected to view with report in one-hour increments in an effort to limit the possibility of potential leaks.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell filed a motion Wednesday for a cloture vote on Kavanaugh for Friday. Those close to the situation now anticipate a confirmation vote to come some time Saturday. Precise scheduling will come from Leader McConnell.

Corker repeatedly says no corroboration in FBI report

Sen. Bob Corker told reporters there is no corroboration in the FBI report, according to CBS News' Rebecca Kaplan. Corker said the report is 46 pages, and nine pages focus on Kavanaugh.

Corker said he plans to vote yes on the judge to the highest court in the land.

McConnell: Kavanaugh allegations "have not been corroborated"

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, taking to the Senate floor, blasted how Democrats have handled the process and claimed the allegations against the nominee "have not been corroborated."

This is America, McConnell said, lamenting how a nominee's reputation could be destroyed by mere allegations. McConnell called this a "shameful" spectacle that has been an "embarrassment" to the Senate.

"The facts do not support the allegations levied at Judge Kavanaugh's character," McConnell said.

Republicans are still on track to begin voting Friday, with final votes Saturday.

Schumer: I disagree with Grassley's statement that there was no hint of misconduct

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said he disagrees with Grassley's statement that there was no hint of misconduct found in the FBI report.

But Schumer refused to take any questions from reporters to expound on that statement. Feinstein, too, refused to take any questions.

Feinstein: Most important part of report is what's not in it

Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the most important part of the report is what's not in it, citing people the FBI did not interview.

Feinstein said she could not talk about the report in detail, "But what I can say is the most notable part of this report is what's not in it."

Feinstein, however, said she had read "some" but "not all" of the report.

Few details on how Trump was briefed

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders did not go into details about how the president was briefed on the report, who briefed him, or how many pages the report was.

Senators enter SCIF to review report

CBS News' John Nolen reports that the following Republican members have entered the secure room in the Capitol to review the FBI's findings as of 9:00 a.m. Thursday morning:

Sen. Roger Wicker

Sen. John Cornyn

Sen. Mike Lee

Sen. John Rounds

Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith

Sen. Jon Kyl

Sen. David Perdue

Sen. Mitch McConnell

Sen. Orrin Hatch

Sen. Chuck Grassley

Sen. Deb Fischer

Sen. Jim Inhofe

Sen. John Barrasso

Sen. Susan Collins

Sen. Bob Corker

Grassley on FBI report: "There's nothing in it that we didn't already know"

In a statement from Senate Judiciary Committee chair Chuck Grassley, the senator said after receiving a staff briefing on the FBI's report, "There's nothing in it that we didn't already know."

"These uncorroborated accusations have been unequivocally and repeatedly rejected by Judge Kavanaugh, and neither the Judiciary Committee nor the FBI could locate any third parties who can attest to any of the allegations. There's also no contemporaneous evidence. This investigation found no hint of misconduct and the same is true of the six prior FBI background investigations conducted during Judge Kavanaugh's 25 years of public service," he added.

"It's time to vote. I'll be voting to confirm Judge Kavanaugh," Grassley urged.

White House's Raj Shah warns of "lasting impact" of Kavanaugh allegations

Speaking to reporters at the White House on Thursday, Deputy Press Secretary Raj Shah said that the allegations against Kavanaugh could have a "lasting impact" on his reputation.

"I'm also concerned about the impact on the court. I'm concerned about the impact on future potential nominees. So yeah it's going to have a lasting impact, it's very unfortunate," he said.

He added that the process has "ruined people's lives", slamming senate Democrats for pursuing a "scorched-earth" strategy.

Shah meanwhile said that the White House remains "fully confident" that the senate will be comfortable with voting to support Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme Court. He said that as part of their investigation, the FBI reached out to 10 people and interviewed 9.

Trump tweets Kavanaugh allegations have impact on voters

"The harsh and unfair treatment of Judge Brett Kavanaugh is having an incredible upward impact on voters," tweeted Mr. Trump in his first official comment following the FBI's report release.

The harsh and unfair treatment of Judge Brett Kavanaugh is having an incredible upward impact* on voters. The PEOPLE get it far better than the politicians. Most importantly, this great life cannot be ruined by mean & despicable Democrats and totally uncorroborated allegations!

[“UPWARD IMPACT” IS NOT MENTIONED FOR ANY MEANING AT ALL ON GOOGLE, JUST THE WORD UPWARD. UPWARD TREND, YES: HE MUST MEAN THAT IT IS CAUSING A RISE IN KAVANAUGH’S POPULARITY. THIS IS APPARENTLY ANOTHER CREATIVE WORD USAGE FOR TRUMP.]

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 4, 2018
He added, "The PEOPLE get it far better than the politicians. Most importantly, this great life cannot be ruined by mean & despicable Democrats and totally uncorroborated allegations!"

The president followed up his tweet by urging "due process" throughout the final confirmation process.

"This is a very important time in our country. Due Process, Fairness and Common Sense are now on trial!"

What are Senators reviewing?

Fran Townsend, former homeland security adviser to President George W. Bush and CBS News national security analyst tells CBS This Morning that senators on Thursday will be looking at a record of their interviews with witnesses known as a 302 form.

Townsend explains that the record is more of a summary than an official transcript of the interview which will include the list of questions they asked and the answers they received from witnesses. This report is then collated into the overall background report, creating a narrative that pulls other reports together into Kavanaugh's background. The FBI's latest investigation dealt purely with the allegations of sexual assault against Kavanaugh, and not his history of excessive drinking.

Townsend said that while she doesn't personally believe the investigation can be credible and complete without an interview of Dr. Ford, it shows just how constrained the bureau was with regards to the scope of their investigation. She contends that the FBI could have asked Ford for her therapist notes and official polygraph test results to better corroborate her testimony.

She said without Ford's interview, it could potentially further impact the FBI's credibility in the process.

As Senate reviews report, White House says ball is in their court

CBS News' Cheif White House Correspondent Major Garrett reports according to two sources familiar with the process, the White House is now deferring to Leader McConnell on final timing and process but is now telling Republican senators that the ball is in their court regarding a final vote on Kavanaugh's confirmation.

McConnell filed a motion Wednesday for a cloture vote on Kavanaugh, setting in motion the procedure that would usher in the first vote sometime Friday and the vote on the full Senate floor on Saturday. If Senators stick to the current timeline a procedural vote would come early Friday morning and a final confirmation vote Saturday morning, approximately 30 hours after the procedural vote is gaveled out.

Ford's attorneys "disappointed" in cloture filing

In a statement from Kavanaugh accuser Dr. Christine Blasey Ford's attorney's, the legal team admonished the FBI's investigation for failing to include an interview with Ford or other witnesses who coudl corrobotrate her Senate testimony.

"We are profoundly disappointed that after the tremendous sacrifice she made in coming forward, those directing the FBI investigation were not interested in seeking the truth," the statement added.

What is a cloture vote?

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Wednesday filed a motion for a cloture vote on Kavanaugh's nomination, essentially setting in motion the procedure and process that would jump start the voting process to confirm the next Supreme Court justice.

By invoking cloture, McConnell is ending debate over changing the Senate Rules in order to hold a vote sometime on Friday and a vote by the full Senate on Saturday.

Senate rules require one intervening day between filing cloture and taking a procedural vote on cloture. Thursday would be that intervening day. Final confirmation vote on Kavanaugh would occur 30 hours after the cloture vote.

There are up to 30 hours of debate if Senators want to use it. It is not assigned to a either party. If Republicans choose not to speak on the floor, Democrats can use all 30 hours if they choose. Both sides would have to agree to yield back a certain amount of time to shorten the debate from 30 hours.