With regard to the process, it will behoove the next Congress to find out what instructions the FBI received and whether the White House counsel prevented the FBI from interviewing the then-nominee out of concern he might lie or might reveal incriminating facts.

AD

AD

In addition, it is important to determine whether Kavanaugh participated in the mistaken identity gambit and/or influenced witnesses and potential witnesses. The FBI, Ed Whelan and others who participated in the confirmation operation should be questioned. It is their conduct (and others on the confirmation team) as much as Kavanaugh’s that is of interest. Complaints from those who offered information but were not contacted by the FBI should also be examined. It is also worth a committee staff’s time to go through documents that had been withheld to determine whether there is something of concern. All of this should have been completed before Kavanaugh was seated, but it’s not moot now that he has been sworn in. Documents, for one thing, may reveal cases or categories of cases for which Kavanaugh should recuse himself. All these questions bear on the perceived legitimacy of the Supreme Court.

A slew of complaints were sent to the D.C. Circuit and then passed on to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. relating to the truthfulness of Kavanaugh’s testimony under oath. Those are now irrelevant from the perspective of the judicial branch’s oversight, but Congress should obtain access to them, carefully review the specifics and then decide whether there were specific factual misrepresentations. It is no easy matter to find specific statements of facts (as opposed to evasions, non-responses and non sequiturs) and prove conclusively they were false — but it is possible. If there are grounds, the FBI should investigate whether he lied under oath.

The result of these inquiries may be reform of the vetting procedures the FBI uses for nominees (i.e., who has access to reports, whether they should be kept confidential, what witnesses are spoken to). The more transparent and uniform the process, the less room there is for manipulation and chicanery.

AD

AD

As for impropriety by Kavanaugh or others in the confirmation process, we simply don’t know what’s there. We should find out whether Kavanaugh had anything to do with the antics of Whelan, who fingered an innocent man, or did anything improper to influence the investigation. We don’t yet know if there was any wrongdoing by the White House staff or outside groups trying to drag Kavanaugh over the finish line.

The confirmation process left a substantial percentage of the country doubting that Congress learned all it could about a critical Supreme Court nominee. Only by review and oversight of the process can the public be reassured everything was on the up-and-up. If the process was corrupted in some way, or if Kavanaugh conducted himself improperly, we need to know that, as well. The question of the appropriate remedy can then be hashed out.