A follow-up to my previous post:

In today’s Washington Post, Colbert King complains that unnamed “supporters” of Elena Kagan have “[found] it necessary to declare that Kagan is not a lesbian.” It would seem that he ought to direct his complaint against the White House and Kagan herself.

It was the White House that, weeks before President Obama nominated Kagan, aggressively batted down a rumor that Kagan is a lesbian. For whatever reason, the White House didn’t take the line that discussion of a governmental official’s (or candidate’s) sexual orientation is irrelevant and improperly invades the realm of privacy. Rather, it specifically denied the rumor about Kagan: “An administration official, who asked not to be identified discussing personal matters, said Kagan is not a lesbian.”

It’s difficult to imagine that the White House didn’t consult and rely on Kagan in emphatically rejecting the rumor. Indeed, a Huffington Post article says that the White House has made clear that Kagan was its source:

“Solicitor General Kagan volunteered the information to the White House when media reports surfaced in the pre-nomination process for the Supreme Court,” said a White House aide.

What’s puzzling is that King and others (see Maureen Dowd’s strange “Supremely Girly Girl” column) seem unwilling to accept the White House’s and Kagan’s word on the matter. This is all the more puzzling as this is a matter that presumably would have arisen in the White House’s vetting of Kagan for her Solicitor General nomination last year as well as for her Supreme Court nomination. (One part of the vetting of high-level officials is a so-called “Dutch uncle” session, in which a senior vetter meets privately with the candidate and presses the candidate to disclose any potentially controversial personal information.) In fact, a recent Washington Post article states that “Administration officials asked Kagan directly about her sexual orientation when she was being vetted for her post as solicitor general.”* In addition, it’s worth noting that a candidate for a nomination violates federal criminal law (see 18 USC 1001(a)) if he makes a materially false statement to a White House vetter.

So, on this record, it would seem that we’re left with two options: Either the White House’s account, drawn from Kagan herself, is correct. Or Kagan has misled the White House in violation of her ethical duty and federal criminal law. Why is it that King and others seem to regard the latter as a possibility?

*The White House aide quoted in the Huffington Post article apparently takes issue with this statement, but the most plausible way of reconciling the accounts is that the issue was addressed in connection with both nominations.