Kavanaugh hearing taught us a great deal about two people

In a process already saturated with cynicism and soured by bad faith, it would be shameful but unsurprising if an FBI investigation aimed at shedding light on Christine Blasey Ford’s accusations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh became the object of political manipulation.

The probe is happening because Republican Sens. Jeff Flake of Arizona and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska grasped how hypocritical it would be for their party to claim to take Ford’s heartfelt and credible testimony seriously and then barrel to a confirmation anyway.

But the FBI may be blocked from doing its job properly. Will it be able to provide a basis for judging the relative trustworthiness of the only two witnesses who appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week?

An investigation sharply constrained by White House Counsel Don McGahn — who is overseeing the FBI’s work and just happened to be Kavanaugh’s leading promoter — would turn a brief moment of limited bi-partisanship into a new occasion for rage and recrimination.

The good news is that the investigation offers time for one important reality to sink in: It is simply not true, as was so often claimed, that both witnesses were equally “believable.”

Ford answered every question she was asked and without pretense. Her candor about what she could not recall added immensely to her credibility.

By contrast, Kavanaugh’s “testimony and claims regarding his drinking habits and behavior in high school and college [and] beyond have been contradicted by so many people. His statements have just proven to be not true.”

Every undecided senator should read Philip Bump’s extensive fact check in The Washington Post flagging answers Kavanaugh gave that “stretched or misrepresented the truth.” Then the senators should turn to The New York Times’ equally comprehensive analysis describing responses Kavanaugh gave that were “misleading, disputed or off point.”

Thus, expecting the FBI to look into the veracity of what Kavanaugh said about his level of drinking does not reflect a desire to demonize people who like beer as much as Kavanaugh says he does. Rather, his level of drinking in those days has a direct relationship to the charges in question — and also on his truthfulness.

There were also Kavanaugh’s repeated claims, as he put it at one point, that “all four witnesses who are alleged to be at the event said it didn’t happen.” No, they did not say that. They said, in various ways, that they didn’t remember it. At the least, the FBI should be able to test their memories.

The undecided senators should think hard about this passage in Kavanaugh’s prepared remarks:

“This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons, and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups.”

No matter how much you want to understand Kavanaugh’s anger, this screed disqualifies him from the Supreme Court. Can any litigant on an issue with any bearing on election outcomes — voting rights, the financing of campaigns, gerrymandering — possibly think Kavanaugh can be fair-minded?

Last week’s hearing did not settle the core issue that the FBI is being asked to examine further. But we learned a great deal about the character of two people.

Admiration for Ford’s courage her meticulousness and her grace was nearly universal. Kavanaugh’s anger while beating back rather than answering key questions won praise from the White House and most Republicans. For just about everyone else, it was anything but reassuring behavior from a man who could serve on the Supreme Court for decades.