This is the point in the Brett Kavanaugh saga when our addiction to outrage turns toxic.
The Kavanaugh situation couldn't be any more flammable, yet Senator Dianne Feinstein pulls out a flame-thrower. And she did it yesterday on Twitter – the favorite playground of outrage junkies. She says Republicans are trying to block an FBI investigation into the allegation by California college professor Christine Ford that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her at a high school party in 1982.
Now, as a 26-year veteran of the U.S. Senate, you might think Feinstein would know what kind of things the FBI can investigate. But you'd be wrong. Apparently, she and many of her fellow Democrats don't know, or maybe they just forgot, that the FBI investigates federal crimes. The Feds aren't typically in the habit of looking into suburban high school parties that happened in the 1980s.
To explain to America's lawmakers what the FBI does, the Justice Department issued a statement that says:
The FBI does not make any judgment about the credibility or significance of any allegation. The purpose of a background investigation is to determine whether the nominee could pose a risk to the national security of the United States. The allegation does not involve any potential federal crime.
So, Democrats who were hoping for an epic, Mueller-length investigation into Risky Business-gate, will have to make due with testimony from Kavanaugh and Ford which is now scheduled for next Monday. That is, if Christine Ford agrees to show up. Late yesterday, her lawyers submitted a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee requesting that law enforcement do a full investigation before anyone testifies. It seems like just another delay tactic.
Democrats turned Kavanaugh's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing into an embarrassing circus of sad clown activists. Imagine what they have up their sleeve for Monday's testimony.
The Left is already billing this as a sequel to the 1991 Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas fiasco.
The Left is already billing this as a sequel to the 1991 Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas fiasco. Anita Hill herself wrote in The New York Times yesterday that the committee "has a chance to do better by the country than it did nearly three decades ago."
But if there's one thing we've learned from Hollywood, it's that sequels made thirty years after the original usually suck.