RUSH: So I just checked out the Senate Judiciary Committee session here before they vote — less than an hour, supposedly. Cory Booker, Democrat — “Senator Spartacus” from New Jersey — is going on and on and on. “This is not partisan! This is not a partisan thing, Senator.” He’s talking to the chairman, Grassley. Not a partisan thing? Everything they do is politicized and partisan. It is precisely that. He talked about the heroism of Dr. Ford coming forward. Heroism? The way Dr. Ford’s appearance is described…

“She was so helpful, they said. She was so cooperative, and she was so nice and so thoughtful, and she admitted to being terrified! She was so terrified she didn’t know what ‘exculpatory’ meant.” None of that matters! None of that matters. At the end of the day, this is about evidence. If you’re gonna destroy somebody’s life, you better have the goods, and they don’t — and neither did Dr. Ford. She can’t tell ’em where; she can’t tell ’em when. The people she says were there all swear under oath that they were not there, and yet this goes on.

And yet Booker is still trying to say that this is not partisan. He just compared it to Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill. He said, “That was a blemish but even they had investigations. Even that committee took time to do the investigation! We’re not even doing the investigation. We won’t even call the FBI.” This is driving people nuts. They had that letter in the middle of July! They could have done anything they wanted between then and now.

They chose not to. When certain elements of her story were investigated, as was revealed yesterday, not a single Democrat member of the committee showed up to participate in it, because this is not about evidence. Once again, they’re trying to take a Democrat activist, a professor, and turn her into an abused average American citizen and attach labels such as “heroine” and “brave” and “courageous,” and it all happens under the premise that her allegations are not challengeable. You cannot question her.

“She says it happened.” That’s the basis under which we’re operating: It happened. And if you refuse, you’re the bad guy. You’re the racist or bigot or sexist or whatever the Democrats want to throw at you. Dianne Feinstein had the letter from Dr. Ford. What did she do with it? She recommended Dr. Ford get a couple lawyers. (impression) “Lawyers? Uhhh, don’t they cost moneeeeey?” DiFi said,” Don’t worry about that. We’ve got you covered,” and she called a couple of Democrat activist lawyers, Katz and Bromwich, who then took the case pro bono so that Ford would not have to sell either her house in Santa Cruz or Palo Alto, or would not have to fly coach on her next trip to Hawaii.

But she couldn’t turn that information over to the FBI. She called a couple of hack activist lawyers and told them what happened to Ford or what Ford said happened, but she couldn’t call the FBI, Dianne Feinstein. She didn’t alert the rest of the committee that she had the letter. She just called a couple of lawyers. The Washington Post did not believe Blasey either. They were contacted first. She sent the letter (probably under advice to somebody) to their tip line, the Washington Post tip line.

They never got back to her because they didn’t believe it, and they wanted to believe anything! Now, when the Washington Post didn’t believe it, it doesn’t mean they didn’t believe her story. What it means is the Washington Post looked at what her claim was and thought it was not useful in getting rid of Kavanaugh. That was the studied reaction by left-wing activists disguised as journalists at the Washington Post. If Dr. Ford’s tip had been presented in a way that made the Washington Post think it would be useful in getting rid of Kavanaugh, then they would have scarfed it up.

But they didn’t. And again, not because they didn’t think she wasn’t credible or not because they… It’s just something about it, I’m convinced, did not turn them on. But they were contacted first, and it was after that when the Washington Post didn’t reply that someone said, “Okay, well, let’s go to the New York Times.” They didn’t call the FBI. They didn’t call Montgomery County police. They sent a letter to Feinstein. Feinstein goes out, hires a couple of hack lawyers who then start marshaling forces with the media.

Throughout all of this, nobody calls the FBI to demand an investigation, ’cause I’ll guarantee you they didn’t believe it, or it wasn’t detailed enough, or it didn’t have what they really wanted — and that is, a way of using it to get rid of Kavanaugh. I guess the pubic hair on the Coke can version of Ford’s story didn’t match the intensity of the pubic hair on the Coke can in the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill story. And nobody wants to frustrate Trump and his Supreme Court nominees more than the Washington Post.

Now, I guess in some ways it takes a lot of courage to accuse somebody of attempted rape and even attempted murder. She said she feared for her life at one point! It might take a lot of courage to accuse somebody of that when you don’t have a shred of evidence! That would scare the hell out of me! Let’s just set the table here. Let’s say that I am a Republican political activist and I sent a letter off to some Republican bigwigs, and they come to me, and they say, “Okay. You say this happened to you, but you can’t tell us where or when.

“You can’t really say who, not for sure? Well, we want you to go before one of our committees, and we want you to testify what happened to you, even though you can’t say where it happened or when.” And I’m saying, “You’re asking me…? I…” Boy, that would take a lot of courage, if you’re asking me. It would take a lot of courage to go tell a story with a whole lot of holes in it. So I guess on that basis we could grant that there was some courage involved. When you don’t have a shred of evidence, not even the details of time and place? You got no witnesses, nothing.

So, yeah, might take some kind of courage to try to destroy somebody without any corroboration. It might take some courage to try to join in the effort to destroy a life and a career. As was said over and over and over again yesterday, the FBI will only interview the same people who have already been interviewed. The FBI would then hand over the same interviews to the Senate. The Senate would just be back where they were before. The FBI doesn’t reach conclusions except… What is it that’s percolating in my memory?

Oh, yeah. The FBI did reach conclusions! The FBI… I’m sorry. James Comey and Strzok Smirk and McCabe, they reached a conclusion that Hillary was innocent. But they did that before examining the evidence. They did that before even interviewing Hillary. Hillary Clinton was exonerated of all crimes before they even interviewed her about her suspicious server and trafficking in classified data and documents. So whereas the FBI might not reach conclusions, we can point to FBI leadership having done so in order to clear Hillary Clinton.

But in the normal scope of things, they don’t. People making this claim are absolutely right.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal just asked (paraphrased), “In good conscience, Mr. Chairman, you delay this vote. We cannot do this in the United States Senate without an FBI investigation. Please delay the vote!” He’s still begging. He’s still asking.