The Daily - What the F.B.I. Found (and Didn’t Find)

Episode Date: October 5, 2018

The agency has delivered its report on Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Senate. Republicans say it reveals nothing new — but Democrats say it was specifically designed to reveal nothing new. Guest: Sheryl Gay Stolberg, who covers Congress for The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.

From The New York Times, I'm Michael Barbaro. This is The Daily Watch. Today, the FBI delivers its report about Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Senate. Republicans say it reveals nothing new. Democrats say it was designed to reveal nothing new. Where that leaves the confirmation process. It's Friday, October 5th. In the middle of the night, at about 2.30 in the morning Thursday,

this much-anticipated report, the FBI investigation into whether or not Judge Brett Kavanaugh committed sexual assault, makes its way to the White House. And there's just one copy of this report. And it gets sent over to Capitol Hill, and it winds up in this secure room, this room that's called a SCIF, Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, that is an underground room and the public can't go in. There are these huge kind of brass looking doors with signs on them that say, you know, no media or public. And this is where the senators review classified information.

And this report is being senators review classified information. And this report is being treated like classified information. Cheryl Gay Stolberg covers Congress for The Times. So the plan is that at eight o'clock in the morning, Republican aides and the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, are going to be able to go in this room for an hour and review this report. And then at nine o'clock, the top Democrat on the committee, Senator Dianne Feinstein, and her aides can go on and on all day long with Republicans and Democrats alternating hour by hour in and out of this room reviewing this single document. This system doesn't seem especially efficient. And actually, it sounds kind of odd. It does sound kind of odd, but the whole day up here has been really kind of surreal. the whole day up here has been really kind of surreal.

So I arrived at about 7.45 in the morning. And the first thing I did was I dropped my computer off in the Senate Press Gallery, where I have this microscopic little desk that looks out. At least I have a window, though. It's great. I have a window, which is really a prized thing in the Capitol. But I ditched my computer and then I went downstairs to the basement. You make kind of a right-hand turn. You can go into the visitor's center and down another set of winding stairs to where this skiff is. And by the time I... The secure room.

The secure room. And by the time I got there, the place was already crowded with reporters. And it was clear that, you know, this kind of bizarre scene was going to be unfolding all day with more and more senators arriving, more and more reporters and photographers

and just a lot of commotion. And Cheryl, once the senators actually make it past the media and they get into the secure room, what are they looking at exactly? What's the process inside that room? Michael, if I knew the answer to that, I'd get a pay raise.

You know, it's so secretive that no one would tell us. But I did find out the documents were 46 pages of interviews. And the FBI tried to reach 10 witnesses. They got nine. Nine of those 46 pages were devoted to Mark Judge. But as to what it actually looked like, we don't know. And they were so cautious that, you know, they wouldn't even describe that kind of act of how did they all look at this, you know, single document. Have you determined how you're going to vote?

I don't know. You've got to get a path, folks. You've got to get a path. So there's a big buzz when they walk out, and reporters are peppering them with questions, and some of them are trying to escape. They don't want to say anything. We're running after them in the hallway saying, you know, what can you tell us about this report?

What's your take on this? Who did they interview? No. Can you And... No. Can you elaborate? No. Really, nobody is saying anything. So what do they tell you? Well, basically what we're getting is spin. The Republicans come out and their line is...

There was no new corroborating evidence. Nothing in these documents shows any form of corroboration of the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh. Senator Scott, can you share any of your reaction to the reports? Other senators come out. Tim Scott of South Carolina, he says, oh, I feel even more comfortable than I felt before. Senator Daines. Steve Daines of Montana says, well, there's no corroboration. It's time to vote. The senators who requested the supplemental FBI background check got what they requested.

And sort of on... And I am ready to vote. And on and on. The fact is that these allegations have not been corroborated. Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, goes to the Senate floor and he declares that... As Chairman Grassley stated this morning, neither the Judiciary Committee nor the FBI could locate any third parties who can attest to any of these allegations. It's time for the, quote, partisan histrionics to stop. It's time to confirm Judge Kavanaugh.

And so Republicans are also kind of taking this one step further. But while we were doing everything we could to treat Dr. Ford with the dignity and respect that she deserves, our Democratic colleagues did her a huge disservice. They're saying that they're the ones who did a better job protecting women, that they didn't leak her allegations like the Democrats did. We know Dr. Ford requested confidentiality, but our Democratic colleagues deprived her of that against her will. That they offered to fly to California to interview her

in a setting that would have been comfortable for her and would have been comfortable for her and would have maintained her privacy. So, you know, they're actually accusing Democrats of running what one of them, I think Chuck Grassley called it a demolition derby. And they just about destroyed a good person to be on the Supreme Court. person to be on the Supreme Court. So for the Republicans, Cheryl,

the message is that this FBI report confirms what they already think, that without definitive proof that an assault ever occurred, Kavanaugh should be considered innocent. And because there's no definitive proof, this has all been a calculated attempt by Democrats to hold up this

nomination and smear Brett Kavanaugh, and it's time for all that to end and for this guy to get confirmed. Right. And what about the Democrats? How are they spinning this FBI report on Thursday? I am not allowed to speak to the details. I can tell you I'm very disappointed

and that I do not believe this investigation was designed to get to the truth or to the facts. So the Democrats are saying this is an incomplete investigation, that it was never intended to find the truth. Only 10 people were questioned. There are dozens of people out there that they could have questioned. That there were many more witnesses out there that the FBI could have interviewed. We had many fears that this

was a very limited process that would constrain the FBI from getting all the facts. Those fears have been realized. So Democrats are saying, you know, no wonder there was no corroborating evidence. The FBI didn't look for it. Hmm. So the Democrats aren't really disputing that this report doesn't offer any new information. They're not saying that this report corroborates those allegations of sexual assault against Kavanaugh. It sounds like what they're saying is that because this report was always so limited in its scope, because of the small number of people who were interviewed and the large number of people who were never interviewed, that it can't possibly prove anything for anyone, that this report was kind of a waste of time. Well, right. And not only that it can't possibly prove anything for anyone, but that it was never intended to prove anything for anyone.

Candidly, what we reviewed today in a very limited time, it looks to be a product of an incomplete investigation that was limited, perhaps by the White House, I don't know. that was limited, perhaps by the White House, I don't know. Dianne Feinstein went as far as to say that the White House seemed to be blocking what the FBI could do. And ensured that 90% of his emails and memos weren't available for the Senate or the public in the hearings. And as I talked to these senators today, the Democrats,

I was struck by how many of them were bringing up kind of their old arguments that they used at the very outset of Judge Kavanaugh's nomination. Like what? Well, like they were concerned that he... Definitely he doesn't support women's reproductive choice. ...would overturn Roe v. Wade, that he... He has a very, very expansive view of executive power

that would enable President Trump to put a stop to investigations into his own conduct. I ran into Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader today, and we were on an escalator down into the basement, and I said to him, knowing that this is your plan, what can you do to stop this nomination from going forward? And he just kind of shrugged and said, anything we can. But it was really clear to me that, frankly, there is not that much, if anything, that he can do.

And I think that Democrats are feeling kind of deflated. So both sides are spinning this as they're talking to you inside the Capitol. But isn't that exactly what we always expected because of the very nature of this FBI report? I mean, as Grassley and even Kavanaugh himself said during the confirmation hearings, the FBI doesn't reach conclusions. It doesn't tell you whether somebody is guilty or not guilty. So that means that senators reading this report have to draw their own conclusions, and those conclusions will inevitably be political. Well, that's right. But don't forget, Michael, there are still a handful of undecided senators who are looking at these interview reports to help make their decision about whether to vote

yay or nay on Judge Kavanaugh. And those senators will be the deciding factor in whether or not he gets a seat on the Supreme Court. So what about those senators who are on the fence? What do they say when they see the FBI report? OK, so first, let's talk about who they are. There are three Republicans, Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona, Susan Collins of Maine, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. And there are two Democrats, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, both in very tough re-election races. Now, Senator Heitkamp announced today that she is going to vote no on Judge Kavanaugh. I will be voting no on Judge Kavanaugh.

She said that Christine Blasey Ford's testimony really echoed with her. She found it very compelling and it weighed on her. You know, there's an old saying, history will judge you, but most importantly, you'll judge yourself. And that's really what I'm saying. I can't get up in the morning and look at the life experience that I've had and say yes to Judge Kavanaugh. Also, she said that she had questions about his truthfulness at the hearings. And so she's going to be a no.

We still haven't heard from Manchin. And we haven't heard from Murkowski. And we heard a little bit from Flake and Collins. What did they say? Well, Flake, when he wasn't ducking reporters, said one short sentence, there's no corroboration. That was it.

And Collins came out of the Republican briefing and said, it seems to be a very thorough investigation. I'm going to go back in and read these documents later. And that's all I have to say. And what do you make of those brief comments from these swing senators? Well, in one sense, we could construe them as comments of support, right? They didn't say anything negative, but they were both very careful about what they said. So I think it's fair to say they signaled their satisfaction with the investigation, but they didn't necessarily say anything about how they would vote. I think we still don't know how they're going to vote. I wonder, to the degree that these undecided Republican senators may have always wanted to vote for Kavanaugh gave that very combative testimony.

Dr. Bozzi Ford gave her very emotional account of alleged assault, and they were locked in this he said, she said. And maybe that that was the point of having this report done in the first place, to make it easier for these undecided Republicans to do what they were always going to do. No, I think that's right. I think in a way that was kind of the brilliance of what Jeff Flake did. Republicans were mad when he asked for the FBI to investigate. They felt he was just delaying something. They wanted to push this nomination through. But in the end, by asking for this investigation, Flake may have just been giving cover to himself and to Murkowski and

Collins to vote yes, if they end up doing that. Cheryl, this entire investigation begins with Senator Flake and Senator Coons asking for it because they believed that this incredibly polarizing confirmation process had started to erode confidence in the Senate, but also in the entire Supreme Court confirmation process. And they believed that an investigation was the only way to begin to repair all that and to restore confidence in the Senate and in the Supreme Court confirmation process. I wonder if you think the report ends up achieving any of that. You know, I don't think it did, Michael.

And honestly, that's really the awful thing about this. It has been really brutal up here to see senators kind of shaken, you know, walking around being escorted by police. I know one senator who was confronted at home late at night by a protester. A bunch of protesters showed up at the airport to dog Republican senators as they were arriving back in town from their home states. Senator Mercado, why do women have to bare their whole soul to you? They can tell their whole lives or their stories. How many stories of sexual violence do you need to hear

in order to believe women? The mood here is very tense, and it's very angry. Vote you out! Vote you out! You know, you're hearing from senators that we need to heal. You know, Jeff Flake said when he asked for this report, this is ripping the country apart, and it's also ripping the Senate apart. We're kind of

back where we were a week ago except people are just angrier. No, you wave your hand at me. I wave my Their rage-fueled resistance is starting to backfire at a level that nobody has ever seen before. Cheryl, I have to wonder if this report was worth doing, in the end, for either side. I don't know. I kind of feel like they had to do it, right? Like after Christine Blasey Ford testified and Judge Kavanaugh testified, there was so much pain. They both came to that hearing in so much pain. And I think their pain was kind of

reflected. There were like ripple effects, right, out through the Senate and through the whole country. So, you know, maybe by doing this report at that moment, it was a step, a little step toward healing for the Senate and for the country. But in the end, it didn't really achieve that. and for the country, but in the end, it didn't really achieve that. So I guess that's kind of a convoluted way of saying, I'm not really sure if there was a point to doing this report. I don't know. Cheryl, thank you very much. We appreciate it.

Thanks, Michael. On Thursday night, Judge Kavanaugh made a final appeal to undecided senators. In an op-ed published by the Wall Street Journal, he attempted to explain his combative behavior during last week's hearing before the Judiciary Committee. I was very emotional, he wrote. I know that my tone was sharp, and I said a few things I should not have said. I hope everyone can understand

that I was there as a son, husband, and dad. The full Senate is expected to vote today on whether to move forward with Kavanaugh's confirmation, with a final vote expected as early as tomorrow. We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know today. On Thursday, the Justice Department indicted seven Russian officers for their role in an elaborate campaign to hack into government agencies in the U.S., Canada, and Europe that were investigating Russian malfeasance around the world. It is evident from the allegations in today's indictment that the defendants believe that they could use their anonymity to act with impunity in their own countries and on the

territories of other sovereign nations, to undermine international institutions and to distract from their government's own wrongdoing. The victims of the attack include agencies examining the poisoning of a former Russian spy living in Britain, doping attempts by Russian athletes, and the deadly downing of a passenger airliner in Ukraine, which Russian-backed troops were accused of shooting out of the sky. Nations like Russia and others that engage in malicious and norm-shattering cyber and influence activities should understand the continuing and steadfast resolve

of the United States and its allies to prevent, disrupt, and deter such unacceptable conduct. The Times reports that the indictments are unlikely to lead to arrests or criminal convictions, but represent the latest round of public shaming of the Kremlin by Western governments. The defendants in this case should know that justice is patient, its reach is long, and its memory is longer. The Daily is produced by Theo Balcom,

Lindsay Garrison, Rachel Quester, Annie Brown, Andy Mills, Ike Sreeskanarajah, Claire Tennisgetter, Paige Coward, Michael Simon-Johnson, Jessica Chung, Alexandra Lee Young, and Nina Potok. With editing help from Larissa Anderson and Wendy Dorr. Lisa Tobin is our executive producer. Samantha Hennig is our editorial director.

Our technical manager is Brad Fisher. Our engineer is Chris Wood. And our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsberg of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolmick, Michaela Bouchard, Stella Tan, Gabriel Dance, and Natalie Renaud. That's it for The Daily. I'm Michael Barbaro.

See you on Monday.