Mark Levin posted an article from NTK Network on Tuesday, which highlights video of then-Senator Joe Biden in 1991, explaining in a hearing on the Anita Hill allegations against Clarence Thomas that the FBI wouldn’t do any good by investigating Hill’s claims.
Here’s the relevant excerpt from Biden’s comments:
“The last thing I will point out, the next person who refers to an FBI report as being worth anything, obviously doesn’t understand anything. FBI explicitly does not, in this or any other case, reach a conclusion, period. Period,” Biden said. “The reason why we cannot rely on the FBI report [is] you would not like it if we did because it is inconclusive. They say, ‘He said, she said, and they said. Period.”
“So when people wave an FBI report before you, understand they do not, they do not reach conclusions,” Biden said.
Joe Biden in 1991 on using an FBI report to clear SCOTUS nominee Clarence Thomas:
"The next person who refers to an FBI report as being worth anything obviously doesn’t understand anything. FBI explicitly does not, in this or any other case, reach a conclusion, period! Period." pic.twitter.com/prsSljq0Fq
— Ryan Saavedra 🇺🇸 (@RealSaavedra) September 25, 2018
The FBI doesn’t reach a conclusion because (a) the crime is not under federal jurisdiction, so it’s not even the FBI’s job to refer it for prosecution, and (b) the FBI can’t enter conclusions about it in official records unless a duly constituted court has rendered a verdict.
Yet the drumbeat of demands that the FBI investigate the allegations against Kavanaugh keeps going.
It’s probably time to listen with an intelligent ear for what that might really be about. Note that Christine Blasey Ford, being handled by a team of Hillary supporters and radical-left activists (see here and here), demanded that the FBI investigate.
The lawyer for the second accuser, Deborah Ramirez, is now demanding that the FBI investigate. Fox News reported Tuesday evening that the lawyer, John Clune, is saying “the FBI must investigate,” rather than the Senate seeking to understand the truth by questioning his client.
“This has to be investigated by meaningful law enforcement. This is not something that can be done by the Senate,” Clune said. “This has to be done by FBI who can investigate the matter with the threat of perjury. Our client’s willing to do that.”
Recall, moreover, that when lawyer-on-the-spot Michael Avenatti (of Stormy Daniels fame) announced he had unnamed “witnesses” ready to describe gang-rapes organized by Kavanaugh, he too represented at least one client’s willingness to have the allegations investigated by the FBI. (Aside: I have no opinion on the “4chan scam” angle – see last link – other than that it’s typical of this whole unseemly mess for it to come up.)
Everybody on the Democratic side shows up wanting an FBI investigation. It’s a ritual chant now. Senators Schumer (NY) and Feinstein (CA) called for an FBI investigation last week in support of Ford. Democratic Senators Gillibrand (NY) and Hirono (HI) even claimed a week ago that if Kavanaugh were really innocent, he’d ask for an FBI investigation to clear his name.
Joe Biden might advise the senators that they’re acting silly, as if an FBI investigation is a magic totem to shake over the situation. But the drumbeat continues. Now wavering GOP Senator Lisa Murkowski (AK) is reportedly backing the demand for an FBI investigation.
“It would sure clear up all the questions, wouldn’t it?” Murkowski said when asked if the bureau should investigate the embattled judge, according to CNN.
But it wouldn’t. Here’s Biden again:
[T]he next person who refers to an FBI report as being worth anything, obviously doesn’t understand anything. FBI explicitly does not, in this or any other case, reach a conclusion, period. Period. … The reason why we cannot rely on the FBI report [is] you would not like it if we did because it is inconclusive. They say, “He said, she said, and they said.” Period.
So what is this passion for an FBI investigation about? We could speculate in various ways. It seems pretty thin to imagine that all these people just really, really want the FBI to type up an official report acknowledging that unadjudicable allegations have been made about 35-to-36-year-old events, for which the details are unclear and there are no witnesses, and which the FBI therefore has no means to determine anything more about.
One possibility does present itself, mere months after learning that Fusion GPS, being paid first by Hillary Clinton and the DNC and then by dark-money donors, pumped opposition research into the FBI through Christopher Steele and DOJ official Bruce Ohr.
Worth considering the implications, although we can’t know. We don’t know if media reporters might play a similar role, as they apparently did in feeding the FBI information about Paul Manafort’s storage locker. (The media seem to have been pretty active already in seeding the anti-Kavanaugh narrative.)
Maybe it’s something else. But at this point, it’s legitimate to harbor skepticism about the motive for a bizarrely insistent demand — and ask the question.