The Judiciary Committee decides whether to perform its core duty, a look at what’s ahead for Rosenstein, and a dispatch from Alaska.
Hi. Welcome to On Politics, your guide to the day in national politics. I’m Lisa Lerer, your host.
You’d have to be living under a rock not to know what’s at stake with Brett M. Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing.
Control of the Supreme Court for a generation. A crucial midterm election just 43 days away. A much-needed victory for a White House under siege. And a major test of the #MeToo movement.
But what hasn’t attracted much attention is how Congress’s handling of the matter has done little to help its rock-bottom reputation among the public.
Consider this: The Kavanaugh hearing is a high-profile test of the Senate’s duty to “advise and consent,” or act as an essential check on the White House. That responsibility, laid out in the Constitution, is a key part of the job.
Not doing it would be like a babysitter opting out of changing diapers. It’s not the whole thing, but it’s a pretty essential part of the gig.
Sarah Binder, a senior fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution, told me this afternoon that the hearing was “just another emblematic signal of how broken down ‘advise and consent’ has become. They’re frozen.”
One of the biggest points of contention in the negotiations between the Judiciary Committee and lawyers for Christine Blasey Ford, who has accused Mr. Kavanaugh of sexual assault, is who will actually do the questioning.
The Republican side of the Senate Judiciary Committee is composed exclusively of white men. So, obviously, the optics aren’t great.
Republicans would prefer to use an outside lawyer or a committee aide — and most definitely a woman. Lawyers for Dr. Blasey opposed the idea, arguing it would make the hearing feel more like a trial. Democrats have said they plan to ask their own questions.
And some top Republicans have changed their tone on the matter, pivoting from the importance of letting Dr. Blasey speak to labeling her claims as little more than a Democratic-led smear campaign.
With the political stakes so high, the risk of having Republicans question Dr. Blasey is obvious. Between a historically wide gender gap and a president not exactly known for his sensitivities when it comes to these issues, Republicans recognize that they have a serious problem with women.
Of course, they don’t want to risk making it any worse. But their efforts to stanch the political pain could leave Congress bleeding.
“It’s just another sign that, certainly, the majority here seems ill-equipped to deal with this type of huge pothole in the road,” said Ms. Binder
Don’t forget — few Americans hold Congress in much esteem already. The congressional approval rating has remained stubbornly under 20 percent for years, occasionally falling into the single digits.
____________________
Washington spent most of Monday morning speculating whether Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, would keep his job. Mr. Rosenstein has not resigned yet, but he’s scheduled to meet with Mr. Trump on Thursday.
In the meantime, here’s a rundown of what could happen next, borrowed from Charlie Savage’s excellent guide (and updated where necessary).
What happens to the Mueller investigation?
It could be in trouble.
Mr. Rosenstein, who appointed Robert S. Mueller III, has said he would refuse unfounded orders to fire the special counsel. But the attorney general in charge of the investigation does have the power to end it — or fire the person running it. A successor more loyal to President Trump might do just that.
Who takes over?
The acting deputy attorney general would be Matthew G. Whitaker, the chief of staff to Attorney General Jeff Sessions. But it’s complicated. The Justice Department has a rule against “double acting” officials — basically, the acting deputy attorney general can’t also be the acting attorney general for the Russia investigation. (Remember, Mr. Sessions recused himself from the case).
Because of that, the succession line for the Russia investigation runs next to Noel J. Francisco, the solicitor general. There’s a caveat there, too: Mr. Francisco’s former law firm, Jones Day, is representing the Trump campaign in the special counsel investigation.
Who might Trump choose as a replacement?
When a Senate-confirmed official “dies, resigns, or is otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office,” the president can temporarily replace them with another Senate-confirmed executive branch official. But, again, while Mr. Trump has plenty of loyalists inside the executive branch, that “double acting” rule could make things complicated.
____________________
On Politics will occasionally check in with The Times’s national correspondents, who live across the country and hear about local issues that might not otherwise rise to our attention. Today, Kirk Johnson, our bureau chief in the Pacific Northwest, sends this dispatch:
Is there ever an advantage, as a politician, to not showing up at all?
The governor’s race in Alaska — a three-way competition between an independent incumbent, a Democrat and a Republican — is testing out the question in repeated no-shows by the Republican, Mike Dunleavy, in scheduled debates and speaking events.
At least twice in recent weeks, an empty microphone marked Mr. Dunleavy’s place on stage as Gov. Bill Walker and Mark Begich, a former United States senator, took questions from audience members and moderators.
Mr. Dunleavy, a former state senator, has said debate organizers knew of his scheduling conflicts.
But having written about Alaskan politics for years as The Times’s correspondent in the Pacific Northwest, I can also see that, however awkward it might look in the moment (and in news coverage), being AWOL might actually rebound to Mr. Dunleavy’s benefit on Election Day.
Mr. Walker, a former Republican, has led the state with a Democrat as his lieutenant governor, and more often than not with support from Democrats in the Legislature. The Walker administration has been aggressive in addressing climate change, and recently announced its opposition to the confirmation of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Mr. Begich, a former mayor of Anchorage, appeals to many of the same voters.
And so a Republican strategy has emerged: highlight, as much as possible, the idea that voters have a choice between a real Democrat in Mr. Begich, a sort-of-Democrat in Mr. Walker, and a genuinely different conservative choice in Mr. Dunleavy. The more that Mr.
