Her actions should be met with skepticism.
W hile Democrats have been putting on a show of hand-wringing over the number of documents related to Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh that they haven’t seen, Senator Dianne Feinstein has released a statement claiming that she has been in possession of one potentially interesting and important document.
But now – days before the Senate Judiciary Committee votes on whether to advance Kavanaugh’s nomination – she has referred the matter to “federal investigative authorities.”
Feinstein might be honoring the letter writer’s confidentiality, but anonymous sources told the New York Times that
The story was first reported by The Intercept, and reporting from various outlets indicates that the letter came into California Rep. Anna Eshoo “over the summer,” and that other members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, including Democrats, have not seen the letter. The letter writer is being represented by Debra Katz, an attorney known for her work on #MeToo sexual harassment cases.
Obviously, any proven case of sexual misconduct by Brett Kavanaugh would cause a reconsideration of his nomination to the Supreme Court. But there are reasons to regard with great skepticism this dramatic move by Feinstein. Here’s why:
1) Democrats have been trying to stall Kavanaugh’s nomination since it was announced by Donald Trump. They have demanded documents above and beyond anything provided by previous SCOTUS nominees. They have said that Michael Cohen’s claims about Trump render the president unfit to nominate anyone. They made motions to delay the Kavanaugh’s hearings while they were going on.
2) Feinstein’s timing raises several questions: If the document were so damning, why was it not turned over to the FBI before now? And why did it not come up during Kavanaugh’s hearing? And if not in the hearing, why didn’t Feinstein make the existence of the letter public sooner?
3) Multiple reports suggest the incident dates to Kavanaugh’s high school days. He’s now 53. Unless there is a contemporaneous record of this alleged misconduct that somehow escaped the notice of these Democrats so desperate to derail his nomination, the allegations will likely be a classic he-said, she-said case. And given how Democrats crystallized their opposition Kavanaugh within moments of his nomination, we can predict where they would come down on this.
It’s hard not to see this as yet another (pathetic) attempt by the Democrats to delay Kavanaugh’s nomination until after the midterm elections—and new senators would not be seated until January, so there needs to be a major delay. Given that pollsters currently predict the GOP will keep the Senate, even that reeks of desperation. No Republicans have indicated they would vote against Kavanaugh, including pro-choice Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski. Jon Kyl has replaced the late John McCain in the Senate and will be present for a vote. Further, Kavanaugh could pick up a few red-state Democrats who are up for re-election. Given the many bipartisan testimonials about Kavanaugh’s character we’ve heard over the past several weeks, it’d be shocking if there were any truth to these late-day rumors. But there is nothing at all surprising about Feinstein’s maneuver.
