As I have periodically been glancing the various stories about Christine Blasey Ford, Brett Kavanaugh, Chuck Grassley, Ed Whelan, Mark Judge, and related, a variety of thoughts have rattled around my mind, not necessarily in any coherent fashion. I have tweeted about some, either directly or in response to others. What I will do below the fold is to try to lay out why I think a complete set of hearings with multiple witnesses testifying under oath is really necessary, and perhaps why a prior investigation getting the FBI to lock down some statements might be necessary.
I am not going to provide any links, since each of the items I address is readily available.
Make of it what you will.
I start by noting I have read statements that Republican staffers have questioned Kavanaugh and apparently two other witnesses under penalty of perjury. As far as I know, no Democratic staffers were allowed to participate in that questioning, which by itself raises the concern that the questions asked were done in a fashion designed to build a “positive” case for Kavanaugh with no meaningful chance of cross-examination. I suspect that there are no complete recordings or transcripts of these interviews, and all (if anything) made available to the Democratic side will be summaries (favorable to Kavanaugh) offered by the Republican staffers.
Second, during his multiple days at the White House (and not performing his current judicial responsibilites), Kavanaugh was apparently calling Republican Senators to persuade them to support him. Given that there was a possibility there might be hearings, this seems to me to be quite inappropriate, and any such call made after the invitation to Dr. Blasey Ford for a hearing totally inappropriate. A time line on these calls needs to be locked down.
Third, it turns out Ed Whelan previously sat behind Sen. Hatch in at least one set of Supreme Court confirmation hearings. We combine this with the fact that Dr. Blasey Ford sent an email to someone having noted Whelan exploring her Linked In page, that email sent less than 90 minutes after the Washington Post informed the White House of her name. This requires proper exploration of who at the White House knew this information, and whether anyone — directly or indirectly — communicated with Whelan before he started poking around Dr. Blasey Ford’s online information.
Fourth, there needs to be a detailed exploration of the role of Garrett Ventry, who after NBC exposed that he had been accused of inappropriate sexual behavior in a previous job, resigned both from his role at Senate Judiciary (where apparently he had been hired as an outside consultant) and from the communications firm CPC, from which they say he was on leave of absence. There has been reporting that they deliberately placed him with Judiciary because they wanted a presence on the Hill. Perhaps we need to see how he came to be in that role, which apparently did NOT require a background check since he was not an employee: was that a deliberate choice to avoid having to do with his previous issues about which someone knew and did not want exposed.
Fifth is the issue of the 65 women who in theory offered support for Kavanaugh having known him in high school and saying that he did not do anything inappropriate. When Politico tried to reach out, only two were willing to reconfirm their support. I would like the FBI to interview ALL of them, asking each a) when were they contacted; b) by whom; c) what specifically were they told why they were being contacted. Were they in fact told the name of Kavanaugh’s accuser, and if so when. I should not have to explain why this is important.
Sixth, Whelan should have to publicly testify and be questioned on when and how he learned the name of Kavanaugh’s accuser, and what contacts he had directly or indirectly with a) the people in the WH helping prep Kavanaug; b) Kavanaugh himself; c) staff reporting to Grassley; d) Sen. Hatch and staff reporting to him.
Seventh, at a minimum Dr. Blasey Ford’s husband and the two therapists to whom she related the incident with Kavanaugh should be allowed to give testimony and to be cross-examined. This could be limited to perhaps a total of 1 hour for each of the three, equally divided between the two parties.
Eighth, regardless of what he said through his lawyers, as an identified participant, Mark Judge should be required to testify under oath and be subject to questioning.
Ninth, the FBI should question as many as possible who were students during the period of the incident in question at Holton Arms and at Georgetown Prep, to see if, even without specific names, an incident such as that described was talked about, as has been alleged. Anyone who recalls such chatter who can provide specifics should also testify.
Tenth, given that the President and some of Kavanaugh’s other defenders are making an issue of Blasey Ford not having reported the incident any time close to the occurrence of the alleged incident (trying to be fair using “alleged”), one or more expert witnesses on how victims of sexual abuse react should be allowed to provide testimony and to be questioned.
Eleventh, given that Whelan offered a name of specific person as the so-called doppeganger for Kavanaugh, at a minimum that person should be questioned by the FBI, and if he desires, allowed to testify,
Twelfth, let’s address the mistaken identify question again. Kathleen Parker should be questioned under oath about why she wrote that particular column, given that we now know that Kavanaugh and those helping him at the White House, were discussing the idea of such an approach. Did she have any direct or indirect communication with any of those folks or with Whelan or with anyone on Hatch’s staff or anyone at CPC between when Blasey Ford’s name broke and when her column appeared.
Thirteenth, everyone involved in prepping Kavanaugh, whether at the White use or elsewhere, needs to be questioned under oath as to when the strategy of offering a double was first discussed, and by whom. This would include not only Kavanaugh, but at a minimum Bill Shine, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Don McGahn and should include asking the names of all people to whom they communicated that notion, when, and whether Blase Ford’s name was included in such discussions.
This is FAR from a complete list of the issues I could raise. Such FBI questioning could have been started once the Post story appeared, in which case the FBI could already have completed many of the interviews needed, even as more have become necessary as more news as broken over the past few days.
Grassley cannot tell Dems they cannot directly question whatever witnesses appear, so far limited to Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh, even if they — cowardy — hire female litigators to do their questioning. Such hiring would be a tacit and obvious admission that they are incapable of fulfilling their responsibilities as Senators in a way that would not be a) hostile to at least one witness and b) politically very damaging.
I am NOT a lawyer, although I did grow up around the law (my mother being one of the first if not the very first female assistant AG in NY State, and having a grandfather, several uncles, an aunt, and a sister who were lawyers and a great uncle who was a judge). I do pay attention to the law, often read judicial opinions in detail, and did teach Government — including Congress and politics — for all or part of 16 of the last 22 years.
I am still not convinced there will be a hearing next week, but we will see.
I do NOT think that McConnell actually has the 51 votes locked up as of right now. I think he was counting on Blasey Ford not testifying, although if she did not it seems clear to me that both Murkowski and Collins would refuse to vote to confirm — they might well abstain. I am sure of Murkowski on that, and after the President’s tweets I feel reasonably confident about Collins absent her testifying.
A proper hearing would destroy Kavanaugh.
Even as is, he is going to be forcefully questioned by two women, Senators Klobuchar and Harris. The only problem I see with that is that both want to run for President, and that can create something of an image problem. I hope Sen. Whitehouse is also a questioner, to demonstrate if nothing else that a) a man can properly address these issues, and b) unlike the Repubs the Dem male senators can act properly.
This is one 72 year old man’s thinking.
I doubt it will have any resonance, but I decided to offer it anyhow.
Make of it what you will.
PS — it would probably not have done Blasey Ford any good to have reported what happened, given that at the time Kavanaugh’s mother was apparently a lawyer in the State Attorney’s (DA) office in Montgomery County MD where the assault in theory took place.