[ad_1]
Dr. Blasey, 51, a university professor in California, accused her of having sexually assaulted her while she was a teenager at a small high school party. Ms. Ramirez, 53, who works for a housing department in Boulder County, Colorado, said that he had exposed her genitals at a party their first year at Yale.
The F.B.I. He did not explain publicly why he stopped after talking to only nine people. Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Blasey were not among the people interviewed by the office. A White House official said that this was not necessary because they testified under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee for hours last week.
The F.B.I. Apparently, she did not explore the allegations of a third accuser, Julie Swetnick, represented by Michael Avenatti, a lawyer who also works for Stephanie Clifford, the former pornographic porn actress known as Stormy Daniels, who had She was paid on the screen before she discussed what she said was an extramarital affair with Mr. Trump. Democratic senators did not focus as much on Ms. Swetnick's statements as on those of Mr. Blasey and Ms. Ramirez.
Officials informed of the review said the office had focused on the incidents described by Dr. Blasey and Ms. Ramirez, but had worked hard to answer broader consumer questions. Judge Kavanaugh's Drinks at High School and College. Judge Kavanaugh told the committee last week that even though he sometimes drank too much beer, he never evaporated. Former classmates then came forward to say that he had misled the committee as to the extent of his consumption of alcohol.
The official said that the office had contacted a person who had reported hearing about the incident involving Ms. Ramirez at Yale University at the time, but this person did not contact her. not seen or spoken to Mrs. Ramirez. He identified the person who, in his opinion, told him about the episode, but that person would have told F.B.I. that he did not remember it, said the manager.
Senators from both sides said they would like the work of the F.B.I. are finally made public, but a previous agreement governing background investigations such as that on Judge Kavanaugh could make the task difficult in legal terms.
A four-page memorandum between the Judiciary Committee and the White House prohibits disclosure of the contents of a substantive file by the committee and sets out the circumstances under which designated staff members or senators who disclose the content without authorization may be punished.
White House lawyers concluded that a similar memorandum dealing with privacy law restrictions prohibited them from making the content public, or commenting on it in a specific way.
Source link
