As I discussed here, the ABA has told Chairman Specter that Fifth Circuit nominee Mike Wallace was “fully apprised of any negative information the Standing Committee relied upon to support its evaluations” and that he had “a full opportunity to rebut the adverse information and provide any additional information bearing on it.” The natural meaning of this statement is that Wallace had, at the very least, been told any such unfavorable allegations with sufficient specificity to enable him to understand them and respond to them. I have been reliably informed that the ABA’s statement is false, just as its similar statement with respect to Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination was false.
The ABA has indicated that it will submit its testimony on the Wallace nomination next Monday. When it does so, it will undoubtedly surround whatever allegations it makes public with the same claim that Wallace knew the allegations and had the opportunity to rebut them. No one should accept its word.