Executive Session
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, as a U.S. Senator and a member of the Judiciary Committee, giving careful consideration to Supreme Court nominations is among my most important responsibilities. These lifetime appointments can change not only the course of the Nation but the course of lives.
I began with deep concerns about Judge Kavanaugh: his unfettered views of executive power, effectively believing that the President is beyond the law; his refusal to commit to well-established precedents on critical issues, like women's constitutional rights regarding abortion; his affinity for unlimited and dark political money and his studious blindness to its harm to our democracy; and his very selection and support by big special interest groups. I had significant concerns about his truthfulness and temperament--concerns proven more than justified over the course of these hearings.
Another warning sign was flashing. Senate Republicans were stopping at nothing to get this nominee through. Why, it made we wonder. Why?
Behind all of the shattered norms and traditions of the Senate, behind all of the hidden documents and unanswered questions, stands the looming question: Why?
In my opening comments in the committee, I chronicled a pattern under Chief Justice Roberts, an unpleasant pattern of 5-to-4 partisan rulings for the big corporate and special interests that are the lifeblood of the Republican Party--not 3 or 4 times, not even a dozen or two dozen times, but 73 times--73 times and all 5-to-4 partisan decisions, all wins for the big corporate and special interests that are the lifeblood of the Republican party--73 times.
The pattern is clear in these 5-to-4 partisan decisions. Every time big corporate and Republican special interests are involved, the big interest wins--every time, 73 to 0.
On its way to delivering these Republican special interest victories, the Roberts Court--or I should say the five of them who do this; call it the ``Roberts Five''--leaves a trail--a trail of wrecked precedents, a trail of sketchy, nonfactual fact-finding, a trail of longstanding statutes ignored or rewritten, and a trail of supposedly conservative judicial principles, like modesty, deference, originalism, and stare decisis, all violated. The pattern of these 73 partisan ``Roberts Five'' decisions explains why. It explains why big Republican interests want Kavanaugh on the Court so badly and why Republicans shredded so much Senate precedent to shove him through. The big Republican interests want to be able to pull 5-to-4 wins out of the U.S. Supreme Court as if it were a legislature they controlled.
What are the areas of law where the big Republican corporate and special interests have a stake where the Roberts Five delivered for those big Republican Party stakeholders?
Well, first, they helped Republicans to gerrymander elections in Vieth v. Jubelirer, 5 to 4. This was a big deal. It let Republicans gerrymander their way to control of Congress, to control of the House of Representatives, in a year Republicans lost by a million votes. They lost the House by a million votes and won it by gerrymandering.
The Roberts Five has helped Republicans to keep minority voters away from the polls: Shelby County, 5 to 4; Bartlett v. Strickland, 5 to 4; Abbott v. Perez, 5 to 4. Making it harder to vote--harder for minorities or poor people or the elderly--is a Republican electioneering tactic, and Republican State legislatures went right to work, passing voter suppression laws right after these partisan decisions.
The Roberts Five also helped to unleash big-money political influence, giving big interests unlimited power to buy elections and threaten and bully Congress. McCutcheon and Bullock and the infamous, grotesque 5-to-4 Citizens United decision were their tools.
This is the sockdolager, the really big deal, by the way. There is a very small world of very big interests that have unlimited money to spend and a business strategy to spend it to influence politics. It is not a big group, but it is a powerful group, and it is the heart of the Republican funding machine. These few but big Republican interests were given unprecedented political artillery by the Roberts Five, at least unprecedented since Teddy Roosevelt cleaned house over a century ago.
Our politics since Citizens United has been contorted and corrupted, but those big influences are, oh, so happy.
What else do the big influencers want to get out of courtrooms?
Big special interests that can muscle their way around Congress and capture executive agencies hate courtrooms. There is this annoying thing in courtrooms of being treated equally with regular people. There is this annoying thing in courtrooms about having to turn over your actual documents. There is this really annoying thing in courtrooms about having to tell the truth. So, bingo, the Roberts Five protected corporations from group class-action lawsuits--Walmart v. Dukes, 5 to 4; Comcast, 5 to 4; Epic Systems, 5 to 4--and helped corporations to steer customers and workers away from courtrooms and into corporate friendly mandatory arbitration--Concepcion, Italian Colors, and Rent-a- Center, all 5 to 4 at the hands of the Roberts Five.
What else? Of course, to bust unions, a perennial Big Business special interest classic, kind of a golden oldie for big Republican influencers: Harris v. Quinn, 5 to 4; Janus v. AFSCME, 5 to 4.
And, of course, to protect polluters. Big polluters pour big money into the Republican Party. They do this, they will tell you, to protect your freedom. They talk a lot about freedom. It turns out that it is your freedom to breath dirty air, drink dirty water, smell the river going by, eat chemicals with your food, and have climate havoc and acid oceans. It is all about freedom--indeed, the freedom for big polluters to pollute for free and get away with it. Right with them there is the Roberts Five over and over, for the polluters, even stopping the Nation's Clean Power Plan 5 to 4 for the coal industry.
The list goes on. It totals 73 partisan 5-to-4 decisions under Chief Justice Roberts, each giving big wins to big Republican interests. It is an indelible pattern.
Although the American people might not be keeping exact score--they might not know that the number is 73--they feel the Court is rigged, and the Court is flying all the warning flags of a captured agency, dancing to special interest tunes and rampaging through precedent and principle to get there.
This pattern is a disaster for the Court, and I know Kavanaugh will contribute to that disaster.
How do I know this? I know this because Kavanaugh's record tells me. That is why he is the nominee, after all. That is the why. He has been signaling the big influencers with over 50 speeches to the Federalist Society. I think he has the human record for speeches to the Federalist Society, signaling that he is their guy.
And he has been signaling with his record as a judge on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in the most controversial and salient civil cases, those decided by bare 2-to-1 majorities. When Kavanaugh was in the majority with another Republican-appointed judge, he voted to advance the far-right and corporate interests a striking 91 percent of the time. That is almost a perfect match for the Roberts Five majority rulings in 5-to-4 cases where these conservative groups show up.
The Roberts Five gives conservative groups a 92-percent win rate. Kavanaugh gives conservative groups a 91-percent win rate. No wonder he is their guy.
Ninety-one percent--remember that number.
Kavanaugh reliably voted for polluters and for dark money and for corporate interests with a healthy dollop of anti-choice, pro-gun, religious-right politics thrown in. Ninety-one percent is how he campaigned for this job.
Big special interests have a habit of turning up regularly in appellate courtrooms like the DC Circuit. Their tool of influence is one of the worst policed tools of special-interest influence in America--the so-called amicus brief, where big special interests fund front groups to file these amicus briefs to instruct courts how they want the courts to rule.
They are called amicus briefs because they are supposedly appearing as a friend of the court, but this has nothing to do with friendship. It is a scandal of secrecy, deception, and manipulation.
How does this involve Kavanaugh? In cases where conservative groups weighed in with these amicus briefs before him, Judge Kavanaugh sided with them--wait for it--91 percent of the time--again, 91 percent. Call him ``Judge 91 percent,'' and you understand why those big interests want him so badly on the Supreme Court and why the Republican Party drove like drunk kids over the curbs and across the lawns, smashing mailboxes of procedure and propriety to get him there.
The overlap between the groups in Kavanaugh's 91-percent club and the groups who fund Leonard Leo, the Federalist Society architect of Kavanaugh's nomination, is telling. The multimillion-dollar scorched- earth ad campaign by groups like the Judicial Crisis Network is funded by big dark money interests.
The NRA poured its own millions into campaigning for Kavanaugh. They promised NRA members that Kavanaugh would break the tie. They are 91 percent sure.
In the face of all this, Kavanaugh feigned impartiality, but then came the ``tell.'' When Kavanaugh returned to the Judiciary Committee to defend himself against accusations of a sex assault, his veneer of impartiality was pulled away, and we saw--America saw--the fierce and rabid conspiracy-mongering partisan within.
(Mr. LANKFORD assumed the Chair.) He even blamed Bill and Hillary Clinton--seriously.
It shows where we are in this country that this display was not by itself disqualifying. But for the big special interests behind ``Judge 91 Percent,'' this was not at all disqualifying. This was reassuring. This was great stuff. It just confirmed what they knew: Judge 91 Percent would be their boy. The Roberts Five would get back in the saddle, and they would get 73 more 5-to-4 partisan victories.
But that moment gave the rest of the country the opportunity to take true measure of a man who claims he is impartial--a man who asks the Senate to grant him a lifetime seat in judgment of others and claims he will judge fairly--fat chance.
One longtime observer of the judiciary who was an early supporter of Kavanaugh recently withdrew his support. He wrote in the Atlantic magazine:
I cannot condone the partisanship which was raw, undisguised, naked, and conspiratorial from someone who asks for public faith as a dispassionate and impartial judicial actor. His performance was wholly inconsistent with the conduct we should expect from a member of the judiciary.
Extraordinarily, even former Supreme Court Justice Stevens has warned against Kavanaugh for the same reasons. Kavanaugh's raw, undisguised, naked, and conspiratorial partisan screed may have excited the donors, but it did nothing to address the concerns that had prompted the hearing in the first place. So in addition to an epic fail of any reasonable test of impartiality, Judge Kavanaugh still bears credible allegations of sexual assault levied against him.
I will confess, I believe Dr. Blasey Ford. We have a big dispute here, but I do hope that in this Senate we at least can agree on one thing. If Dr. Blasey Ford's testimony was true, I hope we can all agree that Kavanaugh has no business on the Court.
Well, I believed her then, and I believe her now, and I did not find him credible at all. I found him belligerent and aggressive--just as his Yale drinking buddies said he was while drunk in college--and evasive and nonresponsive.
Dr. Ford's allegations were credible enough to get her here before the Senate. Her testimony here was quiet, open, and powerful. She was calm, composed, and utterly believable. Even President Trump called her testimony ``credible'' and ``compelling.'' So did many of my Republican colleagues.
But then came the smear campaign to discredit and demean her, led by the President's sickening taunts and mockery in Mississippi. Then came the majority leader's criticisms. He knew it wouldn't do to say outright that she lied, but his every accusation fell to pieces if she was telling the truth. His attacks were a bank shot--a relentless, indirect bank-shot smear of Dr. Ford's credibility.
One element of the smear of Dr. Blasey Ford was to describe her testimony as ``uncorroborated.'' We have heard that over and over. The majority leader said that again just this morning on the floor-- uncorroborated. Well, first, that just isn't true. Prior consistent statements are a well-known form of corroboration, and Dr. Ford's prior consistent statements are abundant. It is ironic to have Republicans complain about a lack of corroboration when Republicans did everything possible to prevent corroborating evidence from coming forward. It is deeply unfair to Dr. Ford to disallow, prevent, and freeze out corroborating evidence and then call her testimony uncorroborated, which bring us to the, to put it politely, abridged FBI investigation.
First, the FBI background investigation was closed to this new evidence in an unprecedented break from the entire history of background investigations. Then, the investigation was limited by secret orders from the White House we still have not seen.
What do we see? We see the dozens of credible, percipient, and corroborating witnesses who came forward to say that they couldn't get an interview from the FBI, who were never contacted when they made themselves known to the FBI.
Ramirez and Dr. Ford explaining this be added at the end of my remarks.
Mr. President, many witnesses were fobbed off into a black hole of a tip line--a tip line from which no tip appears ever to have been pursued, a tip line that was just a dumping ground for unwelcome evidence. As a U.S. attorney, had I received the set of witness summaries we saw, I would have sent the package back for more investigation.
A sincere and thorough investigation designed to get at the truth would have broadly interviewed Kavanaugh and Blasey Ford's known contemporaries to probe their recollections.
An investigation to get at the truth would have interviewed the witnesses who corroborated Dr. Blasey Ford's prior consistent statements.
An investigation designed to get at the truth would have tested Kavanaugh's calendar and yearbook entries with contemporaneous witnesses.
An investigation designed to get at the truth would have done interviews of witnesses who corroborate the incident alleged by Ms. Ramirez, like the classmate ``100 percent sure'' he was told at the time that Kavanaugh had exposed himself to Ramirez.
An investigation designed to get at the truth would have interviewed people who recalled Kavanaugh's propensity to drink to excess and his behavior when drunk relevant to these incidents.
An investigation designed to get at the truth would have certainly sought to interview the alleged victims, like Christine Blasey Ford and the accused perpetrator, Brett Kavanaugh.
From public reporting, we know that none of this happened. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that like everything else in this nomination, such as hiding 90 percent of the records from the Bush White House days, putting bogus ``Executive Privilege'' cover over other documents, and claiming documents are ``committee confidential'' through a nonexistent process that was partisan from start to finish--like everything else, it is hard to escape the conclusion that this investigation was designed not to get at the truth, but to step carefully around it.
I am a huge fan of the FBI. I admire that organization immensely. It must have killed the agents to do such a half-baked and incomplete job because of marching orders from the White House. My heart goes out to the experienced FBI professionals hamstrung by the Trump White House through this investigation. They know better than anyone the holes in what they did, but in this matter they don't have the independence of a criminal investigation. The White House is the client. They must do what they are told. This was yet another Trump abuse of a proud American institution.
So here we are.
A defendant in a criminal prosecution enjoys a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. A defendant in a civil trial must be found culpable by a preponderance of the evidence. An executive agency must make decisions based on substantial evidence. But the question before us is none of those. The question before us is whether Brett Kavanaugh is a man with the character, credibility, impartiality, and temperament to sit in judgment on America's highest Court.
We now know Brett Kavanaugh is not that. He is not close, and Americans know it. But the big Republican interest groups don't care because they see that 91 percent, and they yearn for 73 more 5-to-4 partisan victories.
Service to the law has at its heart an earnest pursuit of the truth. In Kavanaugh's pursuit of office, truth has too often not been his goal but his casualty. The history of falsehoods is well chronicled: denying that he worked on the nomination of the controversial Judge Pryor, denying that he knew of documents stolen from Judiciary Committee Democrats when he was at the Bush White House, denying that he was involved in questions about the knowledge of the secret detention program or the warrantless wiretapping program, denying what he himself said about Presidential immunity from investigation, and complicit in the coverup of millions of documents we should have seen, and on and on.
Once Dr. Blasey Ford and then Ms. Ramirez came forward with sexual assault allegations, the lies came fast and furiously--that he knew nothing about the Ramirez allegations until the ``New Yorker'' story was published; that he had no alcohol problem and never drank to the point of impairment of his memory; that he had unique definitions of phrases in common parlance he related to binge drinking and sex; that he ``always treated women with dignity and respect''; and that claiming himself as a girl's ``Alumnius'' was a sign of affection. As the woman herself retorted: ``There is nothing affectionate or respectful in bragging about making sexual conquests that never happened.''
On they came, little lies and big lies about not having connections to get into Yale, about honoring grand jury secrecy while helping the Ken Starr investigation--none perhaps individually fatal but together adding up to a pattern of dissembling and prevarication. Even before Kavanaugh was nominated, Leader McConnell smelled trouble and urged the President not to nominate someone he knew was a badly flawed nominee with a lengthy paper trail that would likely disclose how extreme and partisan Judge Kavanaugh truly is.
So much has been left by the wayside in the mad rush to jam this nomination through--documents, facts, Senate rules and traditions, real investigation, simple respect for truth--all smashed-up wreckage in the wake of this nomination. But as my fellow New Englander John Adams said, ``Facts are stubborn things.'' The truth has a way of coming out. The millions of hidden pages of Kavanaugh's White House records will come out. The nonassertion assertion of Executive privilege will fall or yield to time. The unheard witnesses will ultimately be heard, and others may come forward, which brings me back to the question I began with: Why all the wreckage? Why all the rush? Why all the damage? Why all the violation? The answer is in the numbers: 5 to 4, 73, and 91 percent. At the end of the day, we go back to a Supreme Court far too often dancing to the tune of a handful of big Republican special interests. The record of this--the pattern of this--is undeniable. As I said, it will be a disaster for the Court, and Kavanaugh will eagerly contribute to that disaster.
This whole mess has been a dark episode for the U.S. Senate, for the Supreme Court, for our image around the world, for our democracy. But there is one bright jewel that can be picked in the midst of all the filth and wreckage and lies; that is that something very special is happening out there. The testimony of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford of her assault at the hands of Brett Kavanaugh, though studiously ignored by so many Republicans and mocked by the President of the United States, has lit a fire.
Just in my small State of Rhode Island, at least 10 women have written to me to share their own personal stories of survival of sexual assault. Like all of us, I get mail everyday about various policies that are being debated here in the Senate. I am coming up on 12 years, and I have never, never had mail like this. These women have come forward from widely different ages and backgrounds--college students and grandmothers--to tell their stories. Some have held these secrets close for years, even for decades. Several of these women gave me permission to share their words--words they have allowed me to free on the Senate floor after years of silence. What a privilege it is. What an honor for me to be trusted in this way by these remarkable women.
Some were moved to tell their stories because they see their own fears reflected in Dr. Blasey Ford's brave testimony--the fear of not being believed, the fear of losing the respect of family or of friends. But they knew that Dr. Blasey Ford's memories were real, and they told me they wanted me to trust that Dr. Blasey Ford's memories were real because they knew that their own memories were real, because their own memories of their assaults were seared into their minds. One told me: ``I am Dr. Ford.''
A woman wrote to me:
I am sure my rapist hasn't thought of me since that night 21 years ago either. In fact, he, like Kavanaugh, would likely deny anything had ever happened. But here's the thing about rape--the victims never forget.
The coverage of Dr. Blasey Ford's appearance before the Senate for some stirred deep and disquieting emotions. As one woman wrote:
The past few weeks have been doubly difficult with Dr. Ford coming forward and all of the constant news threads and social media threads. I have been triggered with nightmares, fear of being alone, and emotionally wrecked. PTSD and triggers are real. No matter how much therapy and time goes by, one small statement or physical interaction can trigger someone who has experienced a traumatic assault.
One letter read:
As a rape survivor (I was 19 years old--I am now 66 years old), I want you to know that that experience does color the rest of a person's life, informing decisions that you make, where and how you go somewhere, how you raise your children and relate to your husband and all other people. Sometimes through the decades, you think about it consciously and on purpose, and sometimes outside events can bring it back without your willing it to be so.
Dr. Blasey Ford's quietly compelling testimony has forced our Nation to face up to the tough questions about how women have been treated. The redemption, if there is one, for this foul nomination process is for us to grasp the power of this moment, for our country to act on the power of this moment. This is about far more than a troubled and troubling nominee. Something big is happening. Women across the country, like these extraordinary women in Rhode Island, are reconciling with their truth, fighting through a long and deeply unfair legacy of shame, fear, and stigma. They are stepping up. They are coming forward, determined, as one wrote to me to leave a different world for their daughters and granddaughters than the world that silenced them for years, for decades.
For me, it is a true personal honor to share this moment with them, to be trusted with these long-held stories, to have the chance to help end that bitterly unfair legacy, and to support them toward that new and better world for their daughters and granddaughters.
5, 2018] Is The Supreme Court Salvageable? (By Jennifer Rubin)
Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh's frantic op-ed in the Wall Street Journal insisting that he is a fair, impartial judge--and that we should disregard his partisan, unhinged diatribe and nonjudicial demeanor during last week's Senate testimony-- serves as some recognition that the partisan wars in which he has taken up arms now threaten the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. Other than denying a seat to an overt partisan such as Kavanaugh, what can be done to recapture at least the illusion that the high court is something more than another blue-vs.-red battlefield?
It helps to understand how we got here, how we got to the point at which a Supreme Court nominee doesn't bother to conceal his animosity toward an entire political party.
The federal judiciary and the selection process for it were not intended as expressions of representative democracy. We didn't even directly elect senators who in turn confirmed judges until the 17th Amendment. It wasn't intended to be an expression of popular will. The expansion of judicial power in the 20th century was a mixed blessing to be sure, serving as both a last line of defense for individual rights against a growing administrative state and an imperfect, sometimes counterproductive tool for ameliorating deep social conflicts. (As an aside, an unelected judiciary with vastly expanded power used to be the right's nemesis; now it is a political prize and a midterm election base-pleaser.)
The high court certainly became a bone of contention for the right during the tenure of Chief Justice Earl Warren, but the nature of the justices and the institution itself changed when our parties become more overtly ideological, with fewer centrists. Still, matters were not dire for the court due to a very undemocratic instrument--the filibuster. That required some small degree of consensus for judicial confirmation and bestowed greater legitimacy on the courts. A justice acceptable to at least a small number of the opposition party's members had to contain his or her partisanship; he or she couldn't be a gladiator for one side or the other.
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) decided that he had enough of that. He envisioned the Supreme Court as simply another arena for bare-knuckle brawls. Custom and comity went out the door. He denied a mainstream liberal judge, Merrick Garland, so much as a hearing. He did away with the filibuster for the high court. Post Opinions contributing columnist Ron Klain, speaking to the New Yorker, put it brilliantly: ``If [Republicans] can, they will.''
Republicans saw no need to release all of Kavanaugh's records. What could Democrats do other than holler? They saw no need to take Christine Blasey Ford's allegations seriously (they'd ``plow right through,'' McConnell said). So what if Democrats squawked? With impunity they could order an FBI inquiry designed to hopscotch around problems for Kavanaugh (e.g. his claims about drinking). Democrats didn't have the votes to block him, and the GOP moderates could be counted on to crumble. Hence we got a Supreme Court nominee pleading his case on Fox News and the Wall Street Journal op-ed page.
In some respect, the fix for the Supreme Court is the same as the fix for our politics--leveling a right-wing populist party that abhors democratic norms and building a center-left to center-right coalition. (Some structural reforms such as ranked voting, eliminating gerrymandering and automatic voter registration would help.)
In the near-term, the goal would be to depoliticize the Supreme Court, reducing the vicious partisanship that accompanies a lifetime appointment. A term limit of 12 to 15 years for justices and a 60-vote threshold seem increasingly attractive. A constitutional amendment would be needed for the former and probably for the latter (unless both sides finally agree that losing the filibuster has been a disaster). That's no easy task considering that an amendment must be proposed by either a two-thirds vote by both houses of Congress, or a call by two-thirds of the state legislatures for a constitutional convention (a prospect so alarming given the extremism and anti-democratic passions of the day that it should be avoided at all costs). However, given the right's former antipathy toward a powerful executive and the left's recent experience in a hyper- politicized nomination process, it might be doable.
The Supreme Court can do its part as well. It has resisted adopting its own ethics rules, including guidelines for recusal. That should end. Justices have become less reticent about making public, political remarks. That should end as well. Judges should eschew appearances before overtly ideological groups. If they act more like judges of old, they might recapture some of the luster the Supreme Court once had.
We've witnessed the destruction of a slew of executive branch norms and the collapse of Congress (which is now a partisan handmaiden to the president rather than a coequal branch of government). If we let the court go to seed, we will have pulled off a trifecta. But it's not an accomplishment that any of us should seek. ____ Katz, Marshall & Banks, llp, Washington, DC, October 4, 2018. Re Supplemental Background Investigation of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh--UPDATED Hon. Christopher A. Wray, Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Dear Director Wray: As you are aware, the Federal Bureau of Investigation failed to interview our client, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, in connection with its Supplemental Background Investigation of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh. It also declined to interview witnesses whose names we provided to the FBI as possessing information highly relevant to Dr. Ford's allegations. We write to provide you with the names of several of the witnesses we requested that the FBI interview in connection with this matter. None were contacted nor, to our knowledge, were more than a dozen other names we provided to the FBI whose interviews would have challenged the credibility of Judge Kavanaugh's testimony before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on September 27, 2018. They remain available to talk with law enforcement.
Jeremiah Hanafin:
Mr. Hanafin is a former FBI agent and professional polygraph examiner. He conducted Dr. Ford's polygraph examination on August 7, 2018, and determined that Dr. Ford's responses were not indicative of deception. Mr. Hanafin had the data from the examination reviewed by four independent reviewers, who all agreed with his conclusions. Mr. Hanafin would be able to discuss the examination with the FBI, as well as provide the polygraph examination data to the FBI for its independent review. He also would have been able to refute the false statements made in Rachel Mitchell's report about Dr. Ford's mental state on the day of the examination.
Russell Ford:
As described in his sworn declaration provided to the Judiciary Committee, in 2012 Dr. Ford told her husband and their couples therapist that she was sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh when she was in high school. He can explain how and why this issue arose in therapy. Mr. Ford has been married to Dr. Ford since 2002 and can attest to her character and credibility.
Keith Koegler:
As described in his sworn declaration provided to the Judiciary Committee, Dr. Ford told Mr. Koegler in 2016 that she was assault led by a man who was then (in 2016) a federal judge. Shortly after Justice Anthony Kennedy's resignation and prior to Judge Kavanaugh's nomination, Dr. Ford sent an email to Mr. Koegler naming Judge Kavanaugh as her assailant. Mr. Koegler has been close friends with Dr. Ford for over five years and can attest to her character and credibility.
Adela Gildo-Mazzon:
As described in her sworn declaration provided to the Judiciary Committee, in 2013 Dr. Ford told Ms. Gildo-Mazzon that she was previously sexually assaulted by a man who was then (in 2013) a federal judge. Ms. Gildo-Mazzon has been friends with Dr. Ford for over ten years and can attest to her character and credibility.
Rebecca Olson:
As described in her sworn declaration provided to the Judiciary Committee, in 2017 Dr. Ford told Ms. Olson that she was previously sexually assaulted by a man who was then (in 2017) a federal judge. Ms. Olson has been friends with Dr. Ford for over six years and can attest to her character and credibility.
Kirsten Leimroth:
In interviews with the media, Ms. Leimroth described a lunch meeting with Dr. Ford and Jim Gensheimer at a beachside restaurant with Dr. Ford in early July 2018, before Judge Kavanaugh was nominated. At that meeting, Ms. Leimroth says Dr. Ford named Judge Kavanaugh as her assailant and described her fears about what would happen if her name and her accusations against Judge Kavanaugh became public. Ms. Leimroth is a family friend of Dr. Ford's and can attest to her character and credibility. See https:// www.mercurynews.com/2018/09/17/metoo-spurred-christine- blasey-ford-to-open-up-about-alleged-attack-year-before- kavanaugh-nomination-friends-say/.
Jim Gensheimer:
In interviews with the media, Mr. Gensheimer described a lunch meeting at a beachside restaurant with Dr. Ford and Ms. Leimroth in early July 2018--the same meeting as the one described by Ms. Leimroth--before Judge Kavanaugh was nominated. At that meeting, Mr. Gensheimer says Dr. Ford named Judge Kavanaugh as her assailant and described her fears about what would happen if her name and her accusations against Judge Kavanaugh became public. Mr. Gensheimer has been friends with Dr. Ford for over eight years and can attest to her character and credibility. See https:// www.mercurynews.com/2018/09/17/metoo-spurred-christine- blasey-ford-to-open-up-about-alleged-attack-year-before- kavanaugh-nomination-friends-say/; https://www.cnn.com/2018/ 09/18/politics/kavanaugh-accuser-friend/index.html.
Monica L. McLean:
Ms. McLean has been friends with Dr. Ford for many years. A letter released to the public on the night of October 2, 2018, apparently written by Brian Merrick, an ex-boyfriend of Dr. Ford during her 20's, falsely claims that Dr. Ford helped Ms. McLean prepare for a potential polygraph examination sometime in the 1990's. Ms. McLean can attest to the falsity of the claims contained in this letter, as well as the character and credibility of Dr. Ford and that of the former boyfriend.
It has come to our attention that another person who requested anonymity came forward to the FBI with information highly relevant to Judge Kavanaugh's behavior in high school and was turned away. His sworn statement was published on October 3, 2018 in the New Yorker: https:// www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/will-the-fbi-ignore- testimonies-from-kavanaughs-former-classmates.
In addition, had the FBI interviewed Dr. Ford, she would have provided her direct account of Judge Kavanaugh's assault and answered any questions about it, including questions that Ms. Mitchell and the Judiciary Committee members were unwilling or unable to ask during the hearing. She would have also provided corroborating evidence, including her medical records and access to the phone from which she messaged The Washington Post about Judge Kavanaugh's assault prior to his nomination to the Supreme Court. The FBI could have also asked her about her conversations with the witnesses referenced above in order to establish those witnesses' credibility. Such an interview would have played a crucial role in providing the FBI with a full picture of all of the facts involved in this important and serious matter.
We were heartened on September 28, 2018, when Senators Flake and Coons announced that the FBI would conduct a supplemental background investigation. All those mentioned above, and more, could easily have been interviewed in the time allotted. It took tremendous courage for Dr. Ford to come forward. As she testified before the Judiciary Committee, she was eager to talk to the FBI. The ``investigation'' conducted over the past five days is a stain on the process, on the FBI and on our American ideal of justice. Sincerely, Debra S. Katz, Lisa J. Banks, Michael R. Bromwich,
Attorneys for Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. ____ Kaiser Dillon pllc, Washington, DC, October 4, 2018. Hon. Christopher A. Wray, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, c/o Dana Boente, General Counsel.
Dear Director Wray: My firm represents Deborah Ramirez, as does the law firm of Hutchinson Black and Cook, LLC. As you likely know, a reporter recently reached out to Ms. Ramirez to ask about an incident involving Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump's nominee for the United States Supreme Court. Ms. Ramirez answered the reporter's questions, and he, after interviewing a number of additional witnesses, wrote a story: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/senate-democrats- investigate-a-new-allegation-of-sexual-misconduct-from-the- supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaughs-college-years-deborah- ramirez.
As you likely also are aware, two of your agents met with Ms. Ramirez this past Sunday, September 30, 2018, in Colorado. Ms. Ramirez spoke with the agents for approximately two hours, answering a host of detailed questions. Ms. Ramirez offered credible and compelling information--as everyone in the room would acknowledge.
Later that day, Ms. Ramirez, through counsel, provided the FBI with a list of more than twenty additional witnesses likely to have relevant information. Ms. Ramirez suspected that a number of those individuals could corroborate her account of Mr. Kavanaugh's behavior.
Fewer than four days later, however, the FBI apparently has concluded its investigation--without permitting its agents to investigate. We are deeply disappointed by this failure. We can only conclude that the FBI--or those controlling its investigation--did not want to learn the truth behind Ms. Ramirez's allegations.
We know this much, however: If your agents had been permitted to investigate Ms. Ramirez's allegations, they would have uncovered substantial corroboration. Just last night, The New Yorker published a new article: https:// www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/will-the-fbi-ignore- testimonies-from-kavanaughs-former-classmates. That article highlights Dr. Kenneth Appold, a professor at the Princeton Theological Seminary. The article reports that, at the time of the relevant incident, Dr. Appold was a Yale undergraduate, a resident of the relevant dormitory (Lawrence Hall), and a suitemate of Mr. Kavanaugh. The article further reports that Dr. Appold has confirmed that, shortly after the relevant incident occurred, he learned of it, including that Ms. Ramirez was the victim and Mr. Kavanaugh the perpetrator. Dr. Appold is one of the witnesses that Ms. Ramirez had suggested that the FBI contact; the FBI never did.
Dr. Appold apparently himself recounted this incident, years ago, to another individual, Michael Wetstone. The New Yorker article cited immediately above reports that Mr. Wetstone has confirmed that Dr. Appold in fact relayed the story in late 1980s or early 1990s. Mr. Wetstone is another of the witnesses that Ms. Ramirez had suggested that the FBI contact; the FBI apparently never did.
If your agents had been permitted to investigate, they would have uncovered still more corroboration:
Dr. Richard Oh is an emergency room doctor in Santa Clara, California. He attended Yale for his undergraduate studies, between 1983 and 1987, i.e., at the same time as Ms. Ramirez and Mr. Kavanaugh. He recalls, during his freshman year at Yale, a female student ``emotionally reporting'' what can only have been the same incident as described by Ms. Ramirez. See Decl. of Dr. Richard Oh (Oct. 3, 2018), attached. Dr. Oh is another of the witnesses that Ms. Ramirez had suggested that the FBI contact; the FBI never did.
There may be many additional witnesses who could offer still further corroboration (if any additional corroboration were needed, which it is not). But we likely never will know, given that your agents were barred from investigating. What we do know, despite that lack of investigation, is that multiple witnesses have corroborated Ms. Ramirez's allegations. Respectfully, your agents should have been permitted to develop that information. Sincerely, William Pittard.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source