Yes, indeed, and that would be corroboration. Senate Judiciary chair Dianne Feinstein pushed the same line she offered yesterday in response to the FBI’s completion of the supplemental background check she and other Senate Democrats demanded before a final vote on Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation. “The most notable part of this report,” Feinstein intoned, “is what’s not in it” — meaning an interview of Christine Blasey Ford and her attorneys’ list of hearsay sources:
"The most notable part of this report is what's not in it." Senate Democrats are detailing the latest FBI report on Kavanaugh ahead of a vote on his nomination. https://t.co/b5KGSw98k7 pic.twitter.com/SI5n7YsPas
— CBS News (@CBSNews) October 4, 2018
That’s a stunningly obtuse argument to make, given that Feinstein’s the reason the FBI didn’t check this out when it was still confidential. The time for the FBI to depose Ford was before the allegation went public, let alone before she testified under oath, if at all. Better yet, the committee could have handled it themselves and had the FBI check Ford’s cited witnesses before it went public, had Feinstein conducted herself properly and informed chair Chuck Grassley about the issue. Then investigators — either the committee’s or the FBI’s — could have deposed the witnesses without having had them tipped off first, and without everyone else coming out of the woodwork with their own axes to grind.
By the way, Feinstein still can’t be bothered to do her job properly. “I had the opportunity to read some, but not all of it,” Feinstein says, and then complains that it’s incomplete. Er … how would she know if she didn’t read all of it?
“It looks to be the product of an incomplete investigation that was limited perhaps by the White House,” Feinstein, ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said after reading the FBI report into allegations that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted a woman decades ago pic.twitter.com/JRK4srILr1
— POLITICO (@politico) October 4, 2018
Chuck Schumer followed up by attempting a different sleight-of-hand. He wants to have the White House’s communication to the FBI released to show that it inordinately constrained the probe. To what — actual witnesses?
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer: "We are reiterating our call to make the directive that the White House and Counsel McGahn sent to the FBI public because we believe it greatly constrained the investigation from the get-go." https://t.co/isf7IWQwAV pic.twitter.com/AGHNsKoCdb
— ABC News (@ABC) October 4, 2018
The White House stated this morning that the scope of the probe was left to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which would match what Jeff Flake and Chris Coons agreed to do. The FBI can certainly be directed by the White House — it’s an executive agency — but they can follow up on serious leads, too. However, this overlooks a basic point: the Senate Judiciary Committee has its own authority to investigate and interview witnesses, too, under penalty of perjury. It doesn’t take the FBI to do it, a point which we’ve repeated ad infinitum during the Democrats’ insistence on an FBI probe. While Feinstein sat on this allegation, did she do any work to “complete” such an investigation? Or even start one?
This is an idiotic argument, made worse by the smear campaign these two senators helped drive.
Update: Old and busted: Why not have an FBI investigation? It’ll only take a few days! New hotness: The FBI only spent a few days on it!
This process was wrapped up in just *5 days,* despite the many witnesses pleading to share relevant information who were ignored by the FBI.
— Tim Kaine (@timkaine) October 4, 2018
Guy Benson is busy busting Kaine on Twitter for this utterly predictable spin. When Democrats demanded an FBI probe two weeks ago, their explicit argument was that it would only take a few days to accomplish. Remember, this was their response to accusations that they were trying to run out the clock:
Chuck Schumer on the need for a short FBI probe (9/26): “It will take only a few days.”
Democrats 10/4: “IT ONLY TOOK A FEW DAYS!!!1!1🤯” https://t.co/TAXUFZJdT7
— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) October 4, 2018
In other words … they were trying to run out the clock. And failed.
Update: I wrote Chuck Grassley in one part where I meant Chuck Schumer. Sorry about that, and thanks to Gary for pointing it out.