This GOP Senate Candidate Isn’t Sure that Attempted Rape Claim Should Disqualify Kavanaugh

“Even if it’s all true,” Rep. Kevin Cramer said.

Tom Williams/AP

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Three days after calling the sexual assault claim against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh “absurd,” North Dakota Rep. Kevin Cramer returned to the issue Monday night and questioned whether an attempted rape by a 17-year-old should disqualify Kavanaugh, “even if it’s all true.”

Cramer, a Republican candidate for Senate challenging Sen. Heidi Heitkamp in a close race, told a local TV news station in North Dakota that if the allegations by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford were true, “it certainly means that he did something really bad 36 years ago.” 

“But does it disqualify him from the Supreme Court?” he added.

Cramer also doubled down on a comment he previously made to a North Dakota radio show, in which he appeared to dismissing the claim against Kavanaugh because it involved teenagers, alcohol, and only attempted, not completed, rape:

As Senate Republicans were negotiating with Kavanaugh’s accuser, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, about the terms of her planned testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Cramer appeared on a North Dakota talk-radio show and criticized Ford for asking to testify after Kavanaugh, saying she was disregarding “due process.” When asked about the relationship between Ford’s claim and Anita Hill’s 1991 sexual harassment accusation against Justice Clarence Thomas, Cramer said the allegation against Kavanaugh was “even more absurd.”

“These are teenagers who evidently were drunk, according to her own statement,” Cramer said. “They were drunk. Nothing evidently happened in it all, even by her own accusation. Again, it was supposedly an attempt or something that never went anywhere.”

(Ford’s statement to the Washington Post was that she had one beer but Kavanaugh was “stumbling drunk.”)

“There was no type of intercourse or anything like that,” Cramer explained during Monday’s TV interview. “That was my point, that nothing happened in terms of a sexual event—beyond, obviously, the attack.” He also questioned the second allegation brought forward by Deborah Ramirez, who attended Yale University with Kavanaugh and claimed that he exposed himself to her at party. Cramer called Ramirez’s allegation “far more suspicious than the first one.”

Heitcamp issued a statement in response to Cramer’s Friday interview: “Congressman Cramer’s comments are disturbing, and they don’t reflect the values of North Dakota.”

Even before the Kavanaugh allegations, Cramer’s record on respecting women wasn’t stellar. As I already reported

It’s far from the first time Cramer, a pro-life Republican who has served in the House of Representatives since 2012, has demeaned women. This week, when Heitkamp accused him of stealing credit for overturning a 40-year ban on exporting crude oil, he called her response a “hissy fit,” NBC reported. Last year, he described women who wore white in honor of suffragettes to one of President Donald Trump’s first addresses as being “poorly dressed” and looking “silly,” according to NPR. And over the summer, he explained Trump’s apparent friendliness toward Heitkamp—a conservative Democrat who has voted with Trump’s position more than 55 percent of the time—by claiming Trump wouldn’t want to be aggressive toward a woman. “She’s a, you know, a female,” he told the Washington Post. “He doesn’t want to be that aggressive, maybe.”


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend