Too many skeletons.

...he should be more than willing, if he's presenting himself as the country's next legal and moral arbiter on the Court.

They won’t dive into investigating the case even if he reopens it.

They will interview her, put what she says in the report. Interview others, put what they say in the report.

A background check investigation doesn’t go all CSI and dig into the case like a case of SVU. They take statements, put them in the report, submit the report.

...the cw being spread from the WH and others that the FBI wouldn't be interested, and it wouldn't be determinate if they did question them and make a report, smacks right up against the undercurrent from Kavanaugh defenders that there's no way to determine who's telling the truth.

Why the refusal to go that extra mile? It would b a far sight more believable report than anything that committee will determine, and it would be a firm starting point that would bolster whatever integrity the hearing hopes to project.

Link to tweet

She’s asking for a full FBI investigation.

Not going to happen. Can’t happen. This isn’t a Federal LE matter.

If this was a background check and there was a person saying that at one point he had grown marijuana in his backyard the FBI would do nothing more than put that person claims into the record and see if other developed withessss mentioned it.

They won’t go pulling satellite photos for the time in question and start running soil analysis for trace remnants of marijuana production and serves warrants for all his emails, phone calls and texts in that period.

They are asking for something that legally can’t be done. Not even if the President orders it. The FBI doesn’t go do full scale LE investigations into accusations of violations of local and state laws. And they certainly don’t when it’s a 35 year old case.

...and it's suspicious that the WH won't use the president's authority to order an additional probe.

No one expects the FBI to be able to make a clear determination, but it makes sense that they ask the questions, given that this committee can only produce partisan judgments to go along with their partisan questioning.

It's obvious the WH doesn't want the FBI probing further, and it's also clear they expect the committee to paper it all over. Resisting asking for the probe, and arguing that the FBI wouldn't be determinate, while falling back on the partisan committee to be the arbiter, makes the objections look even more self-serving. We certainly don't need to be making the case for them with some cynical argument about whether it should be 'full-scale' or not, especially since the WH is resisting enlisting the FBI's help altogether.

It actually makes sense to ask for a full investigation, ultimately settling for something less than that in negotiations with the WH.

...besides:

“Contrary to Trump’s claim, the FBI certainly would do a background investigation if asked by the White House or other agencies, but they have to be asked to do it. Trump and Republicans have not asked them.”

and... the FBI now says they never told Trump or anyone at the White House this. Bloomberg News reported that the FBI did not tell Trump or anyone at the White House that the bureau doesn’t want to be involved in an investigation of allegations against Kavanaugh.

https://www.politicususa.com/2018/09/18/trump-lied-again-the-fbi-never-told-him-or-anyone-at-the-white-house-they-didnt-want-to-investigate-kavanaugh.html

The same things we basically have out in the public now.

What’s the end game in that?

...a sound basis to begin questioning, an established set of assertions without all of the deliberate muddle that will come from republican senators on the committee as they flesh it all out.

"Prof. Ford, you told the FBI..."

"Judge Kavanaugh, you told the FBI..."

See how that works?

...nothing Congress has to offer has the gravitas and balance of an FBI inquiry. They can only muddle the claims and defenses. Better to start on firmer ground.

Resisting one for such dilettantish reasons (especially since the accuser is requesting an inquiry), in favor of a partisan committee weighted against the accuser, makes clear the hearing won't be a search for the truth, but rather a trial of Prof. Ford.

and lying to the FBI is a crime.

This “I hear that from Republicans” may as well be translated as “I knwo you are correct, but I don’t like it, so I’ll try and smear you instead of arguing facts”.

And investigating the incident would be part of that I do believe.

A background check isn’t a full investigation. They will interview her, interview a few other people, look at local police records for the time to see if there is anything backing her claims up. Then they will file all that in a report.

That’s it.

It’s a very, very limited investigation. The interviews are non-confrontational and just record answers to questions, no cross examining or questioning of what is told.

And that’s it. They don’t go along SVU on them and do a full investigation.

They can reopen the background check. And they will interview her, Mr Judge, and maybe Kavanaugh. And file the transcripts in the file.

And that’s it.

They are demanding a full FBI investigation. Something very different and something not legally possible.

Link to tweet

And unless somebody is withholding some serious information here we don’t have anything close to that.

...what we'll get, otherwise, is a stacked committee which is, in effect, organized against Prof. Ford.

Trump refusing to afford Prof. Ford what Bush allowed Anita Hill takes us to a new low.

If Senator Feinstein had turned the letter over in July, when she first got it, it would have been part of the background check.
So in the end, this is the Dems fault (or at least that is what Grassley will say).
Even according to the letter that Fords lawyer sent, she reached out in July so it could be looked into it, so it seems that she was willing to risk her confidentiality. She even, apparently took the polygraph then, so she was prepared.
The FBI would not have declined adding it to the background check.
But you are right, they are not going to "investigate" the actual event, that isn't in their jurisdiction, nor should it be!

...breaking on Chris Hayes.

She's right.

All they can do is take statements from her, Judge and Kavanaugh and add them to the background check file.

...hell, even Bush got the FBI to look into the Anita Hill accusations.

Why should we accept less of a standard than Democrats got Bush to apply?

to investigate, although that would be the gold standard. Is it possible Congress could appoint an Independent Council to do the job?

...especially given that Anita Hill was afforded an FBI inquiry by the Bush WH.

This is a deviation from precedent. Standard practice.

What are they hiding?


Rachel Maddow is exploring your idea of an independent counsel. That prospect of an independent investigation might be the impetus the republicans need to move them off of their objections to a further FBI inquiry.

Link to tweet