You’ll be shocked to hear that the White House has already pronounced the FBI report entirely exonerating for Kavanaugh, claiming that it is now “fully confident” Kavanaugh will be confirmed.

But a lot of new reporting has now emerged that starkly illustrates just how much about the new allegations was not investigated by the FBI. It’s important to note that this probably was not a failing on the FBI’s part but rather was the result of restrictions the White House placed on the probe, a process that itself remains shrouded in disingenuous rhetorical games.

AD

AD

The New York Times reports that as part of the inquiry, the FBI interviewed nine people, and The Post reports that it could confirm interviews with only six people. It appears clear that the FBI did interview Mark Judge, who was named by Christine Blasey Ford as an accomplice in the alleged sexual attack; Patrick Smyth and Leland Keyser, who may have been present downstairs; Chris Garrett, who may have dated Ford at one point; and Tim Gaudette, whose house was the site of a July 1982 gathering noted on Kavanaugh’s calendar.

Here’s a list of the people who we know have not been interviewed:

We’ll have to wait to hear from individual senators to learn what the FBI findings, such as they are, tell us about the sexual assault allegations. But whatever that is to be, are the undecided senators — Republicans Jeff Flake, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, and Democrats Joe Manchin and Heidi Heitkamp — really going to brush off all these new claims, and the restrictions the White House placed on the FBI, lightly?

AD

AD

Kavanaugh’s bad-faith defenders have tried to frame the question about Kavanaugh’s drinking as: Are you really saying his youthful excesses are disqualifying? True, many of those excesses are trivial. But that’s not the right question. Rather, it’s whether Kavanaugh has shown a level of candor in the present about all this stuff (never mind the angry partisanship and openly displayed contempt for the critical role that opposition lawmakers play in this process) that we expect in a Supreme Court justice.

Kavanaugh defenders who have addressed that question point out that he admitted to drinking “too many beers” at times and to doing things that now leave him “cringing.” But this doesn’t get Kavanaugh off that particular hook: All of this new information, on top of other things we’ve already learned, credibly indicate that he blatantly falsified multiple aspects of his conduct in a highly specific way. An admission of general cringeworthiness doesn’t mitigate that. Undecided senators need to decide whether Kavanaugh has really demonstrated the integrity — and respect for the vetting process — that this position, with all the influence it wields over American life, and all the judiciousness and deliberative qualities we expect from those on the high court, demands.

Hundreds of law professors have now added their names to a letter arguing that he has not. And then there’s the process itself. When Flake courageously insisted on a reopened FBI inquiry, he stated that this was necessary to prevent the country from tearing itself apart. The threshold for Flake, then, is that treating these allegations with a seriousness of purpose commensurate with the gravity that millions of Americans across the country accord to sexual assault — many of them being survivors themselves — is the necessary precondition for healing the country, and thus for getting his vote. In this, he was joined by Collins and Murkowski.

AD

AD

But given everything we’ve seen so far — and given what we now are learning — about this process, can any of these undecided senators really claim with a straight face that this standard has been met? If not, how can they vote for Kavanaugh, without betraying their own declared standard to be a lie?