Attorney Sent Letter to Chuck Grassley and Dianne Feinstein Claiming Federal Court Employees Willing to Speak About Brett Kavanaugh

By Ryan Grim

The top Republican and Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee were both approached in July by an attorney claiming to have information relevant to the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. The attorney claimed in his letter that multiple employees of the federal judiciary would be willing to speak to investigators, but received no reply to multiple attempts to make contact, he told The Intercept.

Cyrus Sanai made his first attempt to reach out to Sens. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., in a letter dated July 24.

Sanai told the committee leadership that “there are persons who work for, or who have worked for, the federal judiciary who have important stories to tell about disgraced former Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, and his mentee, current United States Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. I know that there are people who wish to speak out but fear retaliation because I have been contacted by more than a half-dozen such persons since Judge Kozinski resigned in disgrace.”

Sanai is the California attorney who blew the whistle on Kozinski years before a series of articles in the Washington Post in December finally brought about the resignation of the former chief judge of the 9th Circuit Court over sexual harassment revelations. Sanai has long challenged the judiciary and was deemed a “vexatious litigant” by one trial court, an attempted designation that was overturned on appeal.

Since Kozinski’s resignation, questions have been raised about what Kavanaugh knew or did about such behavior, given the close relationship between the two. Kavanaugh clerked for Kozinski in the 1990s, a post that led directly to his clerkship with Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who recommended Kavanaugh to President Donald Trump as his replacement. Kozinski and Kavanaugh remained close and both vetted prospective clerks for Kennedy.

Kozinski’s son recently clerked for Kavanaugh.

The Sanai letter was overnighted and emailed to Grassley’s office on July 25, and Sanai provided a copy of the receipt. He dropped the letter off by hand to Feinstein’s office in West Los Angeles, he said, after being told over the phone that was the most efficient route to delivery.
Grassley’s spokesperson provided the following statement after publication:

Senator Grassley’s office received correspondence, which was also addressed to Sen. Feinstein, from Mr. Sanai in July. As we always do, the office reviewed the content and claims in the letter to determine how best to assess and use the information. The contents of the letter concerned the actions and behavior of former Judge Alex Kozinski and, to a lesser extent, his relationship with Judge Kavanaugh. This topic was discussed significantly at Judge Kavanaugh’s hearing.

Feinstein did provided comment by the time of publication.
During his confirmation hearings, Kavanaugh told the Judiciary Committee that he had no knowledge whatsoever of Kozinski’s behavior and was stunned to learn of the misconduct allegations. “When they became public, the first thought I had: No one should be subjected to sexual harassment in the workplace ever, including in the judiciary, especially in the judiciary,” Kavanaugh said under oath during his confirmation hearing, responding to a question from Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. “When I heard, it was a gut punch. It was a gut punch for me. It was a gut punch for the judiciary. I was shocked, and disappointed, angry, swirl of emotions.”

In a follow up question, Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, asked him to search his records and in a written response, he backed off his certainty, saying only, “I do not remember receiving inappropriate emails of a sexual nature from Judge Kozinski.”

Sanai told The Intercept that at least two federal employees had information to provide the committee about Kavanaugh, including one who spoke directly with Kavanaugh about it. Sanai said that he did not hold Kavanaugh responsible for Kozinski’s behavior, but rather that his claim of ignorance was not credible and could be contradicted by witnesses. Kavanaugh’s credibility has become a central issue in his confirmation, as he has “unequivocally” denied allegations that he sexually assaulted Christine Blasey Ford when both were in high school.

Apart from interviewing witnesses, Sanai also suggested that the Judiciary Committee “subpoena all intra Court emails and messages between Kavanaugh and Kozinski and all emails to and from Kozinski with links to his website.”

The fact that Kozinski hosted pornography on his website and forced some clerks to view it was one of the exposed behaviors that led to his resignation.

“The only way these important stories can be told is if Congress moves the spotlight from abstract procedures and statements of intent to the judges who made the judiciary safe for Judge Kozinski to satisfy his deviant needs. If this Committee, or the Judiciary Committee, does so, I have assurances that more people will step forward,” Sanai wrote.

He also mailed copies of the letter to Sens. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and Reps. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wisc., Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., and Ted Lieu, D-Calif., he said, but can’t be sure that they received them.

Feinstein and Grassley, he said, were the only two he made sure received the letter. “I spent quite a bit of time trying to get Feinstein to address it,” he said.

Feinstein was also contacted in July by Ford, a California professor who said that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her while both were in high school.

“I am writing with information relevant in evaluating the current nominee to the Supreme Court. As a constituent, I expect that you will maintain this as confidential until we have further opportunity to speak. Brett Kavanaugh physically and sexually assaulted me during high school in the early 1980’s,” Ford wrote to Feinstein on July 30. “I have received medical treatment regarding the assault. On July 6 I notified my local government representative” — Anna Eshoo — “to ask them how to proceed with sharing this information. It is upsetting to discuss sexual assault and its repercussions, yet I felt guilty and compelled as a citizen about the idea of not saying anything. I am available to speak further should you wish to discuss.”

The New Yorker’s Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer later reported that after her dealings with Feinstein’s and Eshoo’s offices, Ford stepped back. Feinstein, Farrow reported, “acted out of a sense that Democrats would be better off focussing on legal, rather than personal, issues in their questioning of Kavanaugh.”

After the interactions with Eshoo’s and Feinstein’s offices, the woman decided not to speak about the matter publicly. She had repeatedly reported the allegation to members of Congress and, watching Kavanaugh move toward what looked like an increasingly assured confirmation, she decided to end her effort to come forward, a source close to the woman said. Feinstein’s office did not respond to requests for comment.

Feinstein’s decision to handle the matter in her own office, without notifying other members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, stirred concern among her Democratic colleagues. For several days, Feinstein declined requests from other Democrats on the Judiciary Committee to share the woman’s letter and other relevant communications.

Ford’s attorney Debra Katz has since said that Feinstein handled the situation as well as she could have. “We do think that Feinstein did well by her, and we do think that people took this decision away from her, and that’s wrong,” Katz said. “If the #MeToo era teaches us anything, it’s that a person gets to choose when, where and how, and now this person is going to be injected into a life-altering blood bath.”

Kavanaugh’s credibility has also been called into question by his denial that he ever exploited information stolen from Senate Democrats during previous confirmation fights. Emails subsequently revealed that he did.

Sanai himself, in his letter, offered to testify. Given his history of combative exchanges, it would likely be a fiery affair. The appeals court that overruled the “vexatious litigant” designation added that the litigants in the case lacked “civility and courtesy.”

“In reversing the trial court’s order, we do not intend to signal our approval of the manner in which this litigation has been conducted. It has gone on far too long,” the court wrote. “It has consumed far too much of the judicial system’s limited resources. Gamesmanship appears too often to take precedence over reasonable efforts to resolve procedural disputes and to address the merits of the remaining controversy. Civility and courtesy are absent.”

The “vexatious litigant” designation relied, in significant part, on the complaints Sanai had been filing against Kozinski — complaints that were ultimately borne out.

Correction: September 18, 2018
This story originally referred to Kavanaugh’s testimony as a response to questioning by Hirono. In fact, his remarks above were made in response to questioning by Hatch. His written response above was directed to Hirono. 

Update: September 18, 2018
This story has been updated to include a comment received after publication from Sen. Chuck Grassley’s spokesperson.

Black Women Stand to Lose the Most if Brett Kavanaugh Is Confirmed to the Supreme Court

By

Tamika Mallory

 

As a young adult, my grandmother told me horror stories about what life was like for black women before Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that made abortion legal in the U.S. If you had money, you had access to the services you needed. But for many of our grandmothers, aunts, and mothers, that was not their reality. These women were forced to back alleys and shady doctors to receive the care they so desperately needed. They could not afford much else.

 

From 1972 to 1974, the mortality rate for women of color due to illegal abortion was 12 times that of white women in New York City alone. The coat hanger was our gory reality, the DIY spirit of which lives on today for many women facing financial hardships.

Things are slightly better today, but we are still in a crisis. As a black woman in 2018's America, getting pregnant could literally kill me: Numerous studies point to a reproductive health crisis for black women. We’re dying during pregnancy and birth at higher rates than anyone else in America—numbers that mirror mortality rates in developing countries around the world.

 

Now, with the prospect that Brett Kavanaugh could be confirmed to the Supreme Court, it is possible that Roe v. Wade could be overturned, abortion could be outlawed, and life could become much, much worse for black women. Simply put: Black women have the most to lose if Kavanaugh is confirmed, and we will pay with our health and our lives.

 

As reported by Linda Villarosa in the New York Times, Zoë Carpenter in The Nation, and Renee Montagne at NPR, experts believe pregnancy is more dangerous for black women because of the stress of enduring racism in America. Other factors include having less access to resources because of that racism, as well as healthcare providers that take our symptoms and pain less seriously because of their unconscious bias against black women.

Regardless of why pregnancy is more dangerous for black women, the facts remain that it is more dangerous. Forcing us to bear pregnancies we don’t want—as would happen if Kavanaugh is confirmed—would likely exacerbate what has become a life or death situation for us.

In this way, exceptional wealth means nothing. Even billionaire Beyoncé recently shared a story about her difficulties during childbirth, following a similar story from rockstar athlete Serena Williams. Black women, no matter what their income level, are struggling to get access to high-quality care under our current system.

 

The Supreme Court is expected to function as a way to ensure and preserve justice for all Americans, but black women have never been able to count on our nation’s highest judges to defend and protect us. Brett Kavanaugh would shamefully worsen this problem. (Donald Trump vowed to tap only pro-life judges to the Supreme Court.) Our society still fails to recognize the abuse of black and brown bodies on which this nation was founded—and even more so, the violent control and degradation of black women’s bodies and lives. Throughout the 20th century, government agencies were targeting women of color for sterilization. From 1929 to 1974, North Carolina’s eugenics program aimed to stop poor people or people with mental illness from reproducing, but a disproportionate amount of the women ultimately targeted were black women.

 

For generations, the women who came before us have fought back and resisted this anti-black and anti-woman state violence in any way they could. We owe it to them—and to the women who will come after us—to do the same.

Collective liberation requires reproductive justice, defined by the National Black Women’s Reproductive Agenda as the human right to control our bodies, our sexuality, our gender, our work, and our reproduction—something we’ve historically been denied. Attaining these rights involve real access to preventative services, cultural competency training for health providers to address the bias that is killing black women, and allowing all women, especially women of color, to have a voice on policies that affect our ability to thrive.

 

It’s time for a reset. My organization, Women’s March, spent all of August calling on women to show up at their senators’ offices in their home states and remind them who voted them into office. We’ve continued to collect signatures and hand-deliver wire hangers to senators as a reminder of what women have been forced to do when denied the right to choose, and what women who never had any choice because of their race and economic status are still forced to do. On August 26, Women’s Equality Day, we worked with a coalition of progressive groups to organize rallies across the nation where women could echo our shared demand that the Senate keep this anti-woman candidate off our nation’s highest court.

 

On September 4, when SCOTUS confirmation hearings for Kavanaugh begin, a coalition of 20 women’s organizations will take this resistance from district offices to Washington, D.C. We will look our senators in the eyes as they prepare to vote and leave them with no doubt that women across America are watching. We’re taking action to #CancelKavanaugh, because we can’t afford to roll back rights women have worked for a generation to secure.

If the Senate puts Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court, they’re giving him free rein to gut Roe v. Wade, criminalize abortion, and punish women for making choices about our own bodies. And they’re leaving us with no other choice than to disobey.

 

Black women have never shied away from taking action when our lives and those of our loved ones are on the line. We show up for everyone, and now we need members of the Senate—and women everywhere—to show up for us. Whether you feel you’ll be personally affected or not, it’s time to raise our voices until it is a rousing cry echoing in every corner, every neighborhood, every city in our nation.

Statewide Poll Shows Alaskans Deeply Concerned With Kavanaugh Nomination

Anchorage, AK — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska (ACLU) released the results of a new statewide poll showing Alaskans are concerned that Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court would negatively impact a wide range of issues they care about including voting rights, campaign finance reform, immigration policy, private school vouchers, health care access, reproductive rights, and more.

The poll of 602 likely voters in Alaska was conducted Aug. 14-20 by Harstad Strategic Research of Boulder, CO.

After hearing information about Brett Kavanaugh’s record, support for the nomination stands at only 39%, with 54% opposed to his nomination.

Another clear theme in these numbers is that Alaskans want Supreme Court justices who will be independent of President Trump’s influence and will hold him and his administration accountable. 63% said they oppose Kavanaugh’s position that sitting presidents should be immune from lawsuits, criminal investigations, and prosecution — a hefty 50% strongly disagree. 76% say it is important that the Supreme Court holds the President accountable — 55% say this is extremely important to them.

Issues most concerning to Alaskans about Kavanaugh’s nomination are the threat to Roe v. Wade (65%), protecting the voting rights of minorities (72%), and allowing religious or racially based immigration policy (65%). Also noteworthy is the wide range of issues with which Kavanaugh’s values are at odds with Alaskans - a majority of Alaskans said they were concerned with every one of the 14 different issue areas they were asked to weigh in on.

“While the ACLU of Alaska neither endorses nor opposes Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination, we feel it’s important to help Alaskans share with our senators their feelings about the values and changes to our communities he could help enact if confirmed,” said ACLU of Alaska Communications Director Casey Reynolds. “Senator Murkowski in particular needs to consider whether she wants to own the legacy of Kavanaugh as the deciding vote on the U.S. Supreme Court.”

The American Civil Liberties Union is our nation’s guardian of liberty. For nearly 100 years, the ACLU has been at the forefront of virtually every major battle for civil liberties and equal justice in this country. Principled and nonpartisan, the ACLU works in the courts, legislatures, and communities to preserve and expand the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States. The ACLU of Alaska, founded in 1971, is one of the 53 state ACLU affiliates that strive to make the Bill of Rights real for everyone and to uphold the promise of the Constitution—because freedom can’t protect itself.