Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, Defense, State, Foreign Operations, and Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act,

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, last year, we on the Judiciary Committee conducted an incredibly thorough review of a nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States. We dug into Justice Kavanaugh's personal and professional life and discussed concerns openly in front of the public.

Allegations were raised against the Justice, but none could be corroborated or verified. I know about this because I had a team of dozens of lawyers and investigators chasing down each allegation we received. My team spoke to 45 individuals and took 25 written statements.

Anyone can review the 415-page investigation summary report that I released last November. We laid out the information we received, including some of the ugliest of claims. In the end, there was no credible evidence to support any of the allegations. Brett Kavanaugh then was duly confirmed to the Supreme Court by this body, as prescribed in the Constitution.

Now, fast forward to this past weekend, and the issues that I and a lot of other Members of the Senate are being asked about this very day, just as if there is nothing else going on in this town, but you dig up something that happened a year ago.

The New York Times published a book excerpt about Justice Kavanaugh's younger days that has fueled a very fresh rumor from someone whose friends claim contacted Senators on the committee. That person, Mr. Stier, didn't reach out or provide information to the committee's majority. Apparently, he also didn't provide any information to these writers. It is only on the word of two anonymous sources that his name and accusation come up in this story in the New York Times.

Again, my office never received anything from Mr. Stier or his unnamed friends, and we never received an allegation against Kavanaugh like the one referenced in the report over this weekend. After interviewing eight people related to the Ramirez allegations, not once was Mr. Stier's name mentioned. Had my staff received substantive allegations or had he approached me or my staff, we would have attempted to take a statement and interview him. But the alleged victim, who also didn't speak to these writers, apparently, does not recall the incident. That is a point that the New York Times failed to include in its initial coverage.

Now, it happens that accountability is a cornerstone of democracy. I welcome scrutiny of my work. I frequently refer to reporters and journalists as the police of our democratic system, but today I am reminded of a very old adage: Who will watch the watchmen? This weekend's report included some embarrassing and irresponsible missteps. They are mistakes that warrant serious self-reflection.

A year ago, after the interviews with dozens of people, the New York Times couldn't even corroborate the allegations laid out by Ms. Ramirez and declined to report on them. With nothing but a year of time and another interview with Ramirez herself, the paper thought those unverified claims were suddenly worth printing--no more corroboration and no more verification. Coming only days before the release of the author's book, I can't help but wonder if the timing had something to do with the decision to run the story. Maybe it was to sell more books.

They also laid out what commentators are now calling a new allegation. Let me be clear. This is not an allegation. It is barely a third-hand rumor. These writers--can you believe this?--didn't even speak to the man who they claim originally recounted this rumor. What is left are only layers and layers of decades-old hearsay--no more corroboration, no more verification, and not even anything from the accuser himself, and, most importantly, nothing from the person who was allegedly involved.

Now, the most shameful piece of this episode is that it took more than a full day, after publication, for the editors to intervene and to provide critical context. An editor's note added to the story last night reads: ``The book reports that the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident.''

Let me quote again: `` . . . she does not recall the incident.'' That is the alleged victim. That is the opposite of corroboration and verification. In the legal world, this sort of thing is called exculpatory information. When it is not laid bare to provide greater context, it creates a serious credibility problem.

In this case, the New York Times withheld crucial facts that undercut its own reporting. We now have an uncorroborated accusation, rooted only in unnamed sources, with no direct knowledge of the event and that the alleged victim doesn't even remember.

Now, you know about the New York Times. Their slogan is that they only print what is ``fit to print.'' I just described this situation of no corroboration rooted in an unnamed source without direct knowledge of this event and that the alleged victim doesn't even remember.

Now, to get back to the slogan of the newspaper, when did this stuff I described become something ``fit to print'' by the supposed American paper of record?

The sad consequences of this article are a misinformed public, a greater divide in our own discourse, and a deeper lack of faith in our news media.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source