Thread by @GrassleyPress

.@NYTimes did not contacted Sen. Grassley’s office for this story. If they had, we would've reminded them of a few key public facts they omitted:

1. @senjudiciary staff proactively contacted Ms. Ramirez' lawyers soon after the New Yorker story broke.
nyti.ms/30g2Nbr

@nytimes @senjudiciary 2. Despite 7 attempts by staff, Ms. Ramirez' lawyers declined to provide documentary evidence referenced in the article/witness accounts to support the claims. They also declined invitations for Ms. Ramirez to speak with committee investigators or to provide a written statement.

@nytimes @senjudiciary 3. Nonetheless, our investigators spoke to and reviewed material from several Yale classmates of Ms. Ramirez and Justice Kavanaugh in order to assess the claim. You can read the committee’s 414-page investigative summary here:
bit.ly/30nwLKG

@nytimes @senjudiciary 4. The committee's review found no verifiable evidence to support the claims. The @nytimes' own reporting at the time noted that it couldn't find anyone with firsthand knowledge & that Ms. Ramirez told friends she couldn’t be sure Kavanaugh was involved:

nyti.ms/2puvYrc

@nytimes @senjudiciary 5. Ultimately, Ms. Ramirez’ team agreed only to contact the FBI with the claims. She was reportedly interviewed by the FBI during its supplemental background investigation.
More on those background investigations here:
bit.ly/2I9muvj