Brett Kavanaugh, Donald Trump’s second Supreme Court nominee, at his confirmation hearing.
Photograph by Mark Peterson / Redux for The New Yorker
On Thursday, Senate Democrats disclosed that they had referred a complaint regarding President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Brett Kavanaugh,
to the F.B.I. for investigation. The complaint came from a woman who
accused Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct when they were both in high
school, more than thirty years ago.
The woman, who has asked not to be identified, first approached Democratic lawmakers in July, shortly after Trump nominated Kavanaugh.
The allegation dates back to the early nineteen-eighties, when
Kavanaugh was a high-school student at Georgetown Preparatory School, in
Bethesda, Maryland, and the woman attended a nearby high school. In the
letter, the woman alleged that, during an encounter at a party,
Kavanaugh held her down, and that he attempted to force himself on her.
She claimed in the letter that Kavanaugh and a classmate of his, both of
whom had been drinking, turned up music that was playing in the room to
conceal the sound of her protests, and that Kavanaugh covered her mouth
with his hand. She was able to free herself. Although the alleged
incident took place decades ago and the three individuals involved were
minors, the woman said that the memory had been a source of ongoing
distress for her, and that she had sought psychological treatment as a
result.
In a statement, Kavanaugh said, “I categorically and
unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high
school or at any time.”
Kavanaugh’s classmate said of the woman’s allegation, “I have no recollection of that.”
The woman declined a request for an interview.
In
recent months, the woman had told friends that Kavanaugh’s nomination
had revived the pain of the memory, and that she was grappling with
whether to go public with her story. She contacted her congresswoman,
Anna Eshoo, a Democrat, sending her a letter describing her allegation.
(When reached for comment, a spokesperson for Eshoo’s office cited a
confidentiality policy regarding constituent services and declined to
comment further on the matter.)
The letter was also sent to the
office of Senator Dianne Feinstein. As the ranking minority member of
the Senate Judiciary Committee, Feinstein was preparing to lead
Democratic questioning of Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearing weeks later. The woman contacted Feinstein’s office directly, according to multiple sources.
After
the interactions with Eshoo’s and Feinstein’s offices, the woman
decided not to speak about the matter publicly. She had repeatedly
reported the allegation to members of Congress and, watching Kavanaugh
move toward what looked like an increasingly assured confirmation, she
decided to end her effort to come forward, a source close to the woman
said. Feinstein’s office did not respond to requests for comment.
Feinstein’s
decision to handle the matter in her own office, without notifying
other members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, stirred concern among
her Democratic colleagues. For several days, Feinstein declined requests
from other Democrats on the Judiciary Committee to share the woman’s
letter and other relevant communications. A source familiar with the
committee’s activities said that Feinstein’s staff initially conveyed to
other Democratic members’ offices that the incident was too distant in
the past to merit public discussion, and that Feinstein had “taken care
of it.” On Wednesday, after media inquiries to the Democratic members
multiplied, and concern among congressional colleagues increased,
Feinstein agreed to brief the other Democrats on the committee, with no
staff present.
On
Thursday, Feinstein announced that she had referred the matter to the
F.B.I. “I have received information from an individual concerning the
nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court,” Feinstein said.
“That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come
forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision. I
have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative
authorities.”
In a statement, an F.B.I. spokesperson said, “Upon
receipt of the information on the night of September 12, we included it
as part of Judge Kavanaugh’s background file, as per the standard
process.”
After Feinstein’s announcement, a White House
spokesperson, Kerri Kupec, wrote, about Kavanaugh, “Not until the eve of
his confirmation has Sen. Feinstein or anyone raised the specter of new
‘information’ about him,” calling it an “11th hour attempt to delay his
confirmation.”
Given the heightened attention to issues of sexual misconduct amid the #MeToo
movement, the political risks of mishandling the allegation were acute,
particularly for Feinstein, who is up for reëlection this year and is
facing a challenge from her left. During Clarence Thomas’s Supreme Court
confirmation hearing, in 1991, the Senate was accused by some of
failing to take seriously enough Anita Hill’s allegations that Thomas
had sexually harassed her while acting as her boss at the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission. After the Thomas hearings concluded,
it emerged that Senator Joe Biden, who was the Democratic chairman of
the Judiciary Committee at the time, had failed to call three additional
women to the witness stand who had been willing to offer testimony
confirming Hill’s complaints about Thomas’s inappropriate behavior
toward women. Last December, Biden, who may run for President in 2020,
publicly apologized for failing Hill, saying, “I wish I had been able to
do more.”
Sources familiar with Feinstein’s decision suggested
that she was acting out of concern for the privacy of the accuser,
knowing that the woman would be subject to fierce partisan attacks if
she came forward. Feinstein also acted out of a sense that Democrats
would be better off focussing on
legal, rather than personal, issues in their questioning of Kavanaugh.
Sources who worked for other members of the Judiciary Committee said
that they respected the need to protect the woman’s privacy, but that
they didn’t understand why Feinstein had resisted answering legitimate
questions about the allegation. “We couldn’t understand what their
rationale is for not briefing members on this. This is all very weird,”
one of the congressional sources said. Another added, “She’s had the
letter since late July. And we all just found out about it.”
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment