Last summer washington saw a particular fierce fight over the nomination with Brett Kavanaugh to succeed Justice Anthony kennedy on the Supreme Court it was mean and ugly at times and we know how it turned out as he was narrowly confirmed along the partyline vote. But it was a memorable fight so why did you two decide to kill the story quick. We were both involved in the battle we knew we had a good story and we had good access and we wanted to lay it down for the record so we interviewed more than 100 people at the white house and Supreme Court justices and those in the senate we are so glad that we did because in the moment reflecting on those lessons to learn what happened behind the scenes. And working to replay those events with those allegations of a very similar pattern so what we have seen since the confirmation so they believe thomas over hill but that constant drumbeat to rewrite the narrative it is important to make sure the facts are up there to get part of revisionist history to learn on both sides dont think the American People want to see this level of viciousness and vitriol. It was a horrific thing to go through on all sides as part of the confirmation process we have seen going back hundreds of years in recent decades it is helpful. So talking to a lot of people reporting in this book so what do you learn in recounting the story quick. To get the human side of the way of the kavanaugh family was dealing with the process leading up to the nomination and then to sneak into the white house to be very careful after the president told them they would get the nomination actually kavanaugh and her girls there is already a media stakeout remember the slowmotion tape so they just felt that we will just leave the house and go out the back door so the media could not tell that are not but then to see how these are affected so how do you go through to live in the same community and it is a local story as well as national and the girls are going to school on both sides of the aisle right before the husband is nominated she is texting me she is hosting a neighborhood barbecue at their house and it is so amazing to think what this meant and what they are going through and you can see the strength that it took to level this attack in opposition. Perseverance and survival nobody would want to be in the position but your whole career is right before the career and you are under attack in the confirmation process is an ugly situation do you view it that way republicans and democrats did you come away with any thoughts how that confirmation process could be made better quick. Yes with the various Supreme Court justices nobody had a confirmation process like this but whether you thought it was mild but they all those the confirmation process and by democrats or republicans these are justices who care how they live their lives and to have their integrity questioned by senators who dont show that same integrity is appalling. But they say the senators were bad and there is some truth in that. The thomas hearings there was a procedure precisely to avoid this that if you have an allegation that can be handled discreetly it is not entirely clear that was circumvented the process. So the process broke down the third round of hearings understand people being upset about that how the media handled these allegations and other reported on the story as the court has become more political with its decisionmaking than that creates a very political situation in the process becomes more political and those just by behaving in that fashion. But if the president makes the nomination and the nominee is wellqualified the senate should confirm that nominee that was 35 years ago shouldnt that be the standard now that every candidate was wellqualified the most of the democrats would not move to confirm them and they would say so was judge garland what should be the old standard or does that depend on the political makeup of the senate . The old guard has been very gone for a very long time so that has been abandoned for a long time. The many times when republicans were hoping that breyer and ginsburg almost unanimous confirmation it has taken a while for republicans to realize that standard hasnt been followed you can see some of that frustration and those that subscribe. Sought the final confirmation and said you are not following that. That simply is not the standard. I think the provocations are clearly important the role that the senate has to play looking at judicial philosophy to take an oath to uphold the constitution to make sure somebody that will be in the role of the justice of the Supreme Court somebody needs to look at the text as it is written with that great degree that circumvents the constitution. That doesnt come down to five votes on the Supreme Court. So for example during the garland denomination we could talk about his record that they wanted to proceed to a vote if those that have not been confirmed totally that regular way but with the kavanaugh confirmation to have the name smeared that is something that should be taken off the table for both sides. We have a story of merit garland worried he would be subject to some of these personal character attacks and they talked about how it was handled or considered but he did not receive personal attacks of that nature and was told you dont have to worry about that at all. They will not do that. There are consequences how you fight and republicans did take some consequences how they fought the garland situation but also with Justice Gorsuch there was a little bit of character assassination it did not go well and they left that filibuster but. So keep the personal attacks out but basically isnt there a situation now where it is almost entirely political the president makes the nomination and he as majority control in the senate will be confirmed is not without a situation im not sure the new Supreme Court nominee can be confirmed if the other Party Controls the senate. The present jumper reelected mom dash trumped is reelected with democrats control of the senate that they would not confirm another nominee. I think that is true now theres only one member who has been confirmed by a senate of the opposing party and thats justice thomas. And there was plenty of controversy there. And Justice Scalia that we talk about so it makes sense if the nations top policy how do we expect to not be treated this way . And very healthy approach looking at the text that passes by democrats and republicans. And many will have justices to embrace of what they are enforcing those are the elected representatives for politics has to happen somewhere it will happen in that process. But then they are on life tenure because it is not politics its the law. So with their personal beliefs it should be are you following the law . I like that a lot in theory. It is a matter of great controversy. Congress passed the obama care act and it was overturned in the courts and the Voting Rights act was passed unanimously from congress in 2006 and then overturned by the Supreme Court five four vote. The supreme law of the land but in general just talking about interpreting a statute with overturning obama care you dont rewrite the words that you can avoid the constitution but the second case was almost more explicit so similarly to do justice but thats from kavanaugh. Talk about the mystery woman Christine Mallozzi ford 213 in the middle of the hearings and the Feinstein Office had gotten this and at some point her name had come up and there was a long procedure and she came and testified in those who watched on television and has a very vivid memory of a painful experience in high school about 15 years old and it lasted five or ten minutes but to this day to have a particular memory and he said it never happened you may have heard her name but did not know her none of the other people who had around had an information but what do you think of Christine Blaseyford and what she said and what you believe . This isnt just cut and dry or black and white perk i do take issue she had a vivid memory one of the things that was frustrating for people was how there were no specifics whether what happened or where it happened or who was involved in those details for changes but to go back to that process what we thought it was interesting to do the Supreme Court talk about sex drugs and rock n roll. With the ginsburg nomination when he got in trouble with smoking marijuana. So this is something so they have a pretty good idea who they are dealing with but to say what might come out to make them believe that Justice Kavanaugh would flat out denied the allegation in the process when that first round of hearings and how to answer questions so he is very careful in how he responds and then the allegation comes out and he denies it and then say this is the guy trying to avoid perjury that on the bench 12 years could not be firmer in that denial. That with the allegations and what evidence is there that kavanaugh has to support his claim there is quite a few people who know and like Christine Blaseyford it is a complicated picture they had memories of her in high school but these are real people real lives whether ford or kavanaugh that she accused. And with that testimony whether she made this up so what do people think so why would you go on National Television to tell a story like this . Why would she do that . Thats a question that people ask. She did say she didnt want to come public like to be similar to the anita hill allegations. And then to go on National Television. But then during the first call she made was to the Washington Post but then they responded to her initial calls and we dont know whats going on in her heart of hearts but we tried to put together the evidence and her lawyers for example okay then the Judiciary Committee will give her a hearing with the circumstances it is a very complicated picture of very large Public Relations around it whether democrats are her friends there is definitely an effort. People ask about the motivation but its also interesting how they forget what happens during that second round of testimony and the prosecutor to question Christine Blaseyford i think thats one of the more fascinating characters we explore someone can interview victims of sex crimes for prosecutors in the nationwide expert in interviewing for the position with the Senate Judiciary republicans looking for a bulldog. That is not me i have a career very conscious of the neat to protect the victims and is that way we were told leading up to the opening of the hearing that Christine Blaseyford cannot make it to dc because she was terrified of flying. So that i started to ask her but then they pursue of that is a true statement or not. How did you get here . She flew do you fly . Yes. She explained she went to australia that would be too difficult but then on her resume whatever interest is surfing and travel island hopping. Nothing that matches with the claims that she is so terrified of flying they had to delay the hearing for days. So with these pieces of information its important to say is this true but some people believe she is having the truther has a vivid memory that is not necessarily reliable than we speak with memory experts and they said one of the problems they had when she said it was indelible but nothing about memory is indelible. And with that to be critical without checking the facts. Host see you suggest a one. It can be recovered memory situations where somebody has a strong memory now but hidden and talk about this from 30 years ago so now were not clear i remember that in the 1980s where people of children being molested in daycare these were manufactured memories but somebody who has no memory and developed in therapy but she doesnt tell anybody until therapy because on one side that you expected with the court and wanted to go simultaneously of her statement then wouldnt produce it and then that is very significant because there are no therapy techniques that can manipulate the contents this can happen through therapy or regular discussions with people and even through police interrogations. Because those records were not released and information wasnt given and this is why its so important with Rachel Mitchell but then with this interview you just try to get the facts out. And then to know if there is enough evidence for not only not enough evidence but that is beyond a reasonable doubt that is enough to get a search warrant. It is very uncorroborated. But it is very compelling and significant then to present to a group of republican senators and then laid out systematically in terms of the inconsistency in the state on two more days then it was published by the senate Judiciary Committee with those allegations and how they changed over time and there was a concern. Although this is very typical there were other things that did raise questions. So to be concerned about memory and those changes so that was a very interesting piece of analysis. Analysis. Some people think you should be able to get a nationally televised hearing for making an alligator allegation. They strongly wanted to hear what her story was. Everything was handled through attorneys, so its hard to know were they telling stories at odds with reality with the examplexample that an issue whes both the attorneys and christine who made the stories that didnt seem to match the record that there were other issues as well for instance she said in her testimony be allegation was revealed in part they are going through therapy because she wanted a second or added to her house because she had fear as a result of this happening and one of the things that came out after the hearing was added as a part of a renovation for a unit that could be rented out and that also made people wonder if her story the real reason or not and other people voted in that they had known her for decades and had never known her to have the need for a second or so she didnt have a lot to work with a. You need to have evidence in support of the allegation and not just as they wait for it to come in and it didnt seem to meet anywhere near the standard to not just have this person on the Supreme Court to basically put him in the mind of the country as a sexual abuser. We talked about the difficulty for them to go through this process and the frustrating thing is there is a system for dealing with these things so you dont just ignore any allegations that have a way of doing that to protect all the parties and it was developed specifically because of what happened so there is a process. I know the senator didnt reveal this because of the request for confidentiality but that is a system that is put in the background file against the white house and senate and so wide that wasnt followed his every person involved the only benefit of that again for those who would have liked to see the media circus and national fiasco created in the interest. It hinders the investigation process as well because even when they were later doing this in the process the ideal way would talk about it before they all read it in the paper then you dont have to worry how the witness has been tainted by what theyve already read. That made it much harder to get to the bottom of what was going on and that was a shame. One of the strong points that you and others have mentioned is that there was something 40 or 50 young women they were young women when he was a young guy in high school signed the letters sort of on his behalf saying i knew him in high school and i never saw any signs that he would do Something Like that. I went to High School Like you went to high school and if you assume somebody that is a bad actor at least some would say i remember so and so in this and that your sense is that it was a strong court on his side a lot of people that knew him in High School Theme forward to speak up for him. There were efforts by his High School Friends to get out into the Public Record that they focus me about him. We spoke with one individual that said there were maybe five minutes or less that she would come out and defend their integrity and honor you also sold the alumni she addresses this in the final testimony at the open hearing how much friends have meant to him and how the carefully cultivated friendships developed from a young age women from his High School Years come forward and say that sort o this sort of cos with what i saw i think it would have undercut him quite a bit. They were incredibly respectful and i remember i had to change something and he turned his back and she thought he was a real gentleman with her so it was very telling to see the women close to him stand up. Is there a low point for Brett Kavanaugh i guess the morning that she testified and came across on television than it was his turn you cited a number of people who thought this was and that she comes across as a witness. The allegation comes out he has to be able to defend his character and reputation. So that day is actually finally getting to the point. The low point is when the allegations came out. Guest midway through the process. The allegation comes out and its a huge shock. We learned in the reporting that there was a verthat was a very. Difficult to have the allegation made difficult to convey to other people and trying to convince other people that their innocence that in one way the team that was working to advance the nomination found to be helpful in that everyone could see that this wasnt just necessarily a very serious thing that has to be dealt with just an absurd situation that needed to be dealt with decisively. They were concerned they would lose their. Republican senators were not necessarily stalwarts throughout the process. We would like to hear from him before she makes a decision but that shows you how this is a very narrow voting situation and people that you might even expect to have been you told the story there was a discussion about are you a bush nominee or Trump Nominee that he was close to george w. Bush, worked for him on the Appeals Court that he is now a nominee. It was an interesting dynamic that we heard and we were interviewing people involved that they would talk about while this is difficult because sometimes the people telling us this they were really close and then they realized they were talking more about an attitude and not so much about the specific person sometimes. It was at that moment as he is going for his testimony there were some people saying you need to be a little more recognized where shes coming from and to give credit and just talk about playing up sympathy then you have the white House Counsel who is a really amazing story about sports analogies and the miracle on ice and judge kavanaugh loved this line. He said what we have right now is they come into the locker room and havent been playing well and tried to get them fired up to do their best and he says that is at this moment. In some ways a kind of freed h him. On thursday when he came out strong it was fascinating to learn that was the person he had been and said you have to practice answering these they were following up but didnt want to start sounding over rehearsed which some people do find happening you are calling me a sexual assailant and rapist, this affordable, said he let the passion showed him that was powerful for the American People to see. They came out fighting for his honor and good name. He was so emotional and angry they may have undercut his reputation as a judge that really made a difference that tt showed his support and confirmation. Guest we do look at that conference because everything is being talked about. He does such a good job refuting that the people have moved to different talking points that the temperament is in question but its absolutely true and it wasnt really the testimony necessarily the subsequent questioning of the senators where he starts being aggressive with them and it brought out the talking point and he ends up having to address it by writing an oped and it wasnt something that we had seen before. There were ways in which his behavior invoked around the testimony were the same in the first round he wanted to be eager and open to any questions and sometimes people respond to this by saying as little as possible about their judicial philosophy. He takes a very different approach. He is giving people as much of an answer as he can and is being eager to respond to it. That came from the second roundd round of hearings between some of the critics and others start going after him about some of lines in his yearbook and things he finds to be absurd, he starts punching back. We write about how he does it to senator Amy Klobuchar that was a bridge too far for many people and he ends up coming out after the break to apologize to her. It is interesting to reflect after a full term on the court this is a justice that had a reputation for 12 years as having an affluent temperament and the American Bar Association said as much when they recommended him and after a full term on the court, it seems that when hes not having to defend himself against allegations he is a serial gang rapist and having to deal with the effect of that and his reputation and his young daughters to remember the testimony they were sort of angry and emotional defending his good and i dont know how its just the way life is the same thing about the Supreme Court you are nobody sees that person again. Anybody read about them in the papers and theres pictures of them and maybe there is a photograph of them. I see him in the court every day and he is a very simple nice guy and they may see them in a tv appearance that might have a different impression. I think it is worth noting when they are at the white house they are all there but we learned one court of justice but theyve been replaced with sports references. They do a lot of sports references. When you have 12 years on the court already you go back to the way you write opinions and that is the strength of appointing people if you dont have to wonder are they going to suddenly suck you off in a different direction. We know how hes going to be a judge because hes done so for decades. Host tell me who you think some of the heroes and villains of the story are. Youve got some details on both. Guest weve talked about several people that Rachel Mitchell with someone who enjoyed learning more about. One that was impressive to learn about was the linda kyser close friend from high school and one of the other people who was named the party. What we have learned as she is someone who is a lifelong liberal she stated she didnt think she ever met him. Host she didnt remember knowing him in high school . Guest it was a formative summer because she was a professional golfer. When she heard about the allegation initially she was dismayed. She was racking her brain trying to think of details where she could corroborate it and she couldnt come up with any. We tell the story how she made that first statement saying i simply cant remember but i cant verify it. That was interesting because it was something that the people who were working on the nomination thought was that was their silver bullet. We already have dementia identified with the party say she didnt remember it happening and then the final person you would have thought would be the person. The team for this visit, this is going to be great this is where things are turning around. They got little coverage when it came out and even this isnt breaking through. The modification was discussions with common friends of theirs has had she was frustrated because there were people including judge kavanaugh saying it refutes the testimony. Just because i dont remember it. But then people were trying to convince her to shade that more strongly than she felt comfortable with. I still dont remember even if i dont i believe her i dont remember. That is a statement she gets later i and the fbi investigatin comes about, she does speak to the fbi and then twice in fact goes back and let them know about some of the encouragement she was getting to change her statement and she begins to feel not only that she cannot corroborated but the opportunity she has to reflect, that this doesnt actually line up with the kind of event that would have happened at all. Guess she comes to actually lose confidence in the story as she has time to reflect she never remembers it from the beginning. For someone who again on a political basis and as a lifelong guest you want to be able to support your friend but she also felt a deep conviction that she had to be 100 truthful and that took a lot of courage. I was thinking of another hero. Susan collins learning more about what she went through such became she starts receiving threatening packages in the mail from people who want her to vote against whoever the nominee is and she shows an unbelievable amount of discipline hiring additional staff to go through the record. Shes not even on the Judiciary Committee she goes through the record and it takes so much time by all accounts are meeting is the one that is the most detailed and most informed and then she really starts to get the pressure from opposition groups and just refuses to be believed i thought that showed tremendous courage because it also involved ends up being that her home is a bit is how she dislikes certain things Dianne Feinstein doesnt come across looking very good in the book or other accounts because it seems like she should have acted sooner on this report could we uncovered tension between her staff that was in many cases further to the left than she would have been. They wanted to work well for others and other members of the committee and was on tour inclinehusband wereinclined to h them they discussed scuttling back becausdeath because they hn the position that sets nothing less than every single piece of paper that went through the white house. Its also harmed the Democratic Senators and senator feinstein senators and senator feinstein in the eyes of some of these. We detail a scene where the tension between feinstein and her staff the democrats and their staff boils over into almost a comical situation. They are frustrated with the political game playing they have high regard for senator feinstein and low regard for the staff. There was a limited pool of people that have access to the letter and she didnt get through the normal procedure to protect people that are accusing with the whistleblowing she arranged in attorney known for highprofile cases. There isnt a limited group that had access to it. Host so we all sort of agree that the idea of processes and say go through all of the confirmation hearings and then get ready to go into any major new development. It is as you say. I never thought i would live long enough to see twice in my lifetime very similar to the way that Clarence Thomas and anita hill revelations came out after the first round of hearings. I covered the first round of hearings and nobody remembers that. Everybody remembers the second. You wouldnt think it could happen twice in 3havebeen twicet does. Thank you very much. It was great to talk with you and the book is justice on trial in the confirmation and future of the Supreme Court. Good luck on the book thank you very much. Guest thank you. The incident that really it is by the southern gentleman and famous every two weeks and the story it was easy for me to write the night before. I thought i was fooling him about how much work went into it he said something complementary, which he usually did and then he said but you know you never achieve what you want to achieve unless you learn to stop thinking with your fingers. The one i was quick t to do the powerbrokeget thepower broker ao realize how complex this is how to explain how he got his power,