FBI probe is the next battle in war over Kavanaugh

[webfact]

FBI probe is the next battle in war over Kavanaugh

By Doina Chiacu and John Walcott

 

FILE PHOTO: Judge Brett Kavanaugh testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee during his Supreme Court confirmation hearing in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, U.S., September 27, 2018. Win McNamee/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic U.S. senators expressed concern on Sunday over reports the White House was working with Republicans to narrow the scope of an FBI investigation into sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

 

President Donald Trump bowed to pressure from moderate members of his Republican Party on Friday and ordered the probe after Christine Blasey Ford, a university professor, detailed her allegations at a Senate hearing that Kavanaugh assaulted her in 1982, when the two were in high school.

 

The stunning reversal capped two weeks of allegations, followed by furious denials, that roiled prospects for Trump's nominee, a conservative federal appeals court judge once expected to easily become the second Trump nominee to win a lifetime appointment to the top U.S. court.

 

Kavanaugh has denied Ford's accusation, as well as those of two other women.

 

Separately, the Senate Judiciary Committee made public late on Sunday a previously unreleased interview with Kavanaugh from Sept. 26, before a public hearing with Ford, in which he denied all the allegations against him and committee Democrats declined to ask questions, saying they felt the FBI should investigate the allegations.

 

Republicans, who are trying to retain control of the U.S. Congress in November elections, are seeking to balance their desire for another conservative justice on the court with sensitivity about how they handle sexual misconduct allegations amid the reverberations of the #MeToo movement.

 

It did not take long, however, for the FBI probe to become an object of partisan division.

 

A White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Reuters the White House had defined the parameters of the probe for the FBI and that the investigation would start with interviews with only four people.

 

NBC News, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal previously reported that the White House was constraining the investigation, prompting Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee to express concern.

 

Senator Dianne Feinstein, the panel's top Democrat, wrote to White House counsel Donald McGahn and FBI Director Christopher Wray and asked that the committee be provided with a copy of the written directive the White House sent to the FBI, as well as the names of any additional witnesses or evidence if the probe is expanded.

 

The White House did not respond immediately to a request for comment.

 

LIMITING THE PROBE

The administration denied it was trying to control the probe, which the Judiciary Committee said on Friday "would be limited to current credible allegations" and wrapped up within a week.

 

"We're staying out of the way," White House press secretary Sarah Sanders told "Fox News Sunday."

 

However, the administration made clear there would be limits. "It's not meant to be a fishing expedition," White House adviser Kellyanne Conway said on CNN's "State of the Union."

 

Trump vowed on Saturday that the FBI could interview "whoever they deem appropriate."

 

On Sunday, he criticized Democrats for expressing concerns about the length and scope of the probe.

 

"For them, it will never be enough!" he wrote on Twitter.

 

The FBI will question Deborah Ramirez, who said Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a party when both were students at Yale University, the White House official told Reuters.

 

It will also question Mark Judge, a friend of Kavanaugh who Ford said witnessed the assault, and Leland Keyser and P.J. Smyth, who she said were at the gathering.

 

A third accuser, Julie Swetnick, was not on the initial list of witnesses to be interviewed.

 

Senate Republicans compiled the list of four witnesses and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell shared it with the White House, the official and another source familiar with the matter told Reuters.

 

The New York Times, citing people familiar with the matter, reported that the White House asked the FBI to share its findings after the initial interviews and that Trump and his advisers would then decide whether the accusations should be investigated further.

 

Neither the FBI nor a Judiciary Committee representative would comment on details of the probe.

 

Senator Susan Collins, among a handful of moderates who joined Republican Senator Jeff Flake, said in an email: "I am confident that the FBI will follow up on any leads that result from the interviews."

 

Flake was instrumental in forcing the investigation.

 

Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond, said it would not be unlawful for the White House to restrict the investigation's scope because the FBI is under the executive branch.

 

However, Tobias said FBI agents were usually allowed to act independently and it would be a "clear conflict of interest" for White House officials involved in Kavanaugh's confirmation process to interfere with the FBI's investigation.

 

(Reporting by Doina Chiacu and John Walcott; Additional reporting by Jan Wolfe and Patrick Rucker in Washington and Karen Freifeld in New York; Writing by Doina Chiacu and Patricia Zengerle; Editing by Tim Ahmann and Peter Cooney)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-10-01

[zaphod reborn]

What's incredibly ironic is that Kavanaugh's nomination is going to fail for the same reason that he tried to take down Clinton for a BJ when he was Ken Starr's tool - perjury.  The lies were about small details which didn't directly relate to Ford's allegations, but will be easily verifiable by the FBI's interview of Kavanaugh's high school classmates.  He didn't need to lie about the meaning of devil's triangle, beach party ralph, boofing and Renate alumnius.  But he did, just like Trump lies about easily verifiable small and irrelevant facts, and that will be enough to keep Kavanaugh off the court.

[MaxYakov]

Yeah, right! Send in the FBI. They've shown there competency in recent years not to mention their partisanship corruption. This FBI effort is obviously a delaying tactic, since they have already deferred to investigate and they don't have legitimate jurisdiction in this case. Why don't they call Scotland Yard. They're probably better at this type of investigation these days.

[Proboscis]

1 hour ago, MaxYakov said:

Yeah, right! Send in the FBI. They've shown there competency in recent years not to mention their partisanship corruption. This FBI effort is obviously a delaying tactic, since they have already deferred to investigate and they don't have legitimate jurisdiction in this case. Why don't they call Scotland Yard. They're probably better at this type of investigation these days.

Trolling.

Partisanship? do you mean against Clinton who claims that they lost her the election by bringing up the email issue again (when new info came to light?) or do you mean against Trump when they were investigating connections between his campaign and the Russians?

In both cases they were right. The additional Clinton emails were relevant; there was prima facie evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians (although to what extent it went is unclear although enough heads have rolled over it).

Lets look at this another way. Imagine for the moment that the FBI had done exactly the opposite to what they did. Imagine they had let the additional Clinton emails slide or said nothing about them or that they had hushed up the Russian connection with the Trump campaign? Now we couldl be discussing serious partisanship in either case! Or if they had done both, we could have said that the FBI is afraid to do its job, afraid of pissing of a winning candidate!

 

There are lots of points that could be made about all of this, including that there should be a separate entity that is independent of the office of the President and Congress who investigates such matters. But remember that the FBI has to work within the bounds of the constitution.

 

Having raised the issue, what would you have them do in that situation? What would you have done?

[MaxYakov]

1 hour ago, Proboscis said:

Trolling.

Partisanship? do you mean against Clinton who claims that they lost her the election by bringing up the email issue again (when new info came to light?) or do you mean against Trump when they were investigating connections between his campaign and the Russians?

In both cases they were right. The additional Clinton emails were relevant; there was prima facie evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians (although to what extent it went is unclear although enough heads have rolled over it).

Lets look at this another way. Imagine for the moment that the FBI had done exactly the opposite to what they did. Imagine they had let the additional Clinton emails slide or said nothing about them or that they had hushed up the Russian connection with the Trump campaign? Now we couldl be discussing serious partisanship in either case! Or if they had done both, we could have said that the FBI is afraid to do its job, afraid of pissing of a winning candidate!

 

There are lots of points that could be made about all of this, including that there should be a separate entity that is independent of the office of the President and Congress who investigates such matters. But remember that the FBI has to work within the bounds of the constitution.

 

Having raised the issue, what would you have them do in that situation? What would you have done?

 

Who are "them"? I don't have dog in this fight. Pulled out the insanity ten years ago. Trolling indeed.

[Srinivas]

Sex Crimes Prosecutor Rachel Mitchell report is out.

https://mobile.twitter.com/JacobAWohl/status/1046599195799371776/photo/1

 

also, word on the darkweb is fbi investigation will conclude soon showing text messages between reporter from major news corp and senator discussing ways to delay vote. 

wait till teusday to see if accurate.

 

[Becker]

11 minutes ago, Srinivas said:

Sex Crimes Prosecutor Rachel Mitchell report is out.

https://mobile.twitter.com/JacobAWohl/status/1046599195799371776/photo/1

 

also, word on the darkweb is fbi investigation will conclude soon showing text messages between reporter from major news corp and senator discussing ways to delay vote. 

wait till teusday to see if accurate.

 

Oh, word on the darkweb is it?! Brilliant!!

Edited October 1, 2018 by Becker

[Srinivas]

18 minutes ago, Becker said:

Oh, word on the darkweb is it?! Brilliant!!

sometimes brilliant sometimes disinfo similar to television,msm lol

but it looks like Diane Feinstein is a little concerend about the scope,of fbi investigation

Edited October 1, 2018 by Srinivas
added msm

[stevenl]

4 minutes ago, Srinivas said:

sometimes brilliant sometimes disinfo similar to television,msm lol

but it looks like Diane Feinstein is a little concerend about the scope,of fbi investigation

Of course she is, as should everybody be, with the information that the scope of the investigation will be extremely limited. So not for the reasons you're implying, but for good reasons.

Edited October 1, 2018 by stevenl

[bristolboy]

5 hours ago, MaxYakov said:

Yeah, right! Send in the FBI. They've shown there competency in recent years not to mention their partisanship corruption. This FBI effort is obviously a delaying tactic, since they have already deferred to investigate and they don't have legitimate jurisdiction in this case. Why don't they call Scotland Yard. They're probably better at this type of investigation these days.

The White House disagrees with you.

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, Srinivas said:

Sex Crimes Prosecutor Rachel Mitchell report is out.

https://mobile.twitter.com/JacobAWohl/status/1046599195799371776/photo/1

 

also, word on the darkweb is fbi investigation will conclude soon showing text messages between reporter from major news corp and senator discussing ways to delay vote. 

wait till teusday to see if accurate.

 

 

56 minutes ago, Becker said:

Oh, word on the darkweb is it?! Brilliant!!

Hey, if you can't trust Sauron, who can you trust?

[riclag]

1 hour ago, Srinivas said:

Sex Crimes Prosecutor Rachel Mitchell report is out.

https://mobile.twitter.com/JacobAWohl/status/1046599195799371776/photo/1

 

also, word on the darkweb is fbi investigation will conclude soon showing text messages between reporter from major news corp and senator discussing ways to delay vote. 

wait till teusday to see if accurate.

 

The FBI will be sharing evidence with the investigators of the Judicial committee that will be looking into who leaked Ford's name according to my second choice for President in 2024 ,the honorable Sen. L.Graham

[Srinivas]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

Of course she is, as should everybody be, with the information that the scope of the investigation will be extremely limited. So not for the reasons you're implying, but for good reasons.

we'll see in good time. Actually the dems should be concerned and hope investigation stays limited imo. internal texts between senators and media could be embarrassing if not devastating before midterms. october surprises and all. 

 

[rgraham]

Ridiculous waste of resources, great job democrats!

[stevenl]

10 minutes ago, Srinivas said:

we'll see in good time. Actually the dems should be concerned and hope investigation stays limited imo. internal texts between senators and media could be embarrassing if not devastating before midterms. october surprises and all. 

 

Nice try, no cigar. The democrats want an extensive investigation.

[Srinivas]

51 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Nice try, no cigar. The democrats want an extensive investigation.

I hope they get one too. enjoy the show

[Srinivas]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/lindsey-graham-promises-full-scale-probe-into-democrats-handling-of-ford-kavanaugh-allegation

 

"The FBI will do a supplemental background investigation, then I'm going to call for an investigation of what happened in this committee. Who betrayed Dr. Ford's trust? Who in Feinstein's office recommended Katz as a lawyer? Why did Ms. Ford not know that the committee was willing to go to California?" Graham continued, referring to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Debra Katz, one of Ford's attorneys who has been involved in Democratic politics in the past.

 

 

[stevenl]

1 minute ago, Srinivas said:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/lindsey-graham-promises-full-scale-probe-into-democrats-handling-of-ford-kavanaugh-allegation

 

"The FBI will do a supplemental background investigation, then I'm going to call for an investigation of what happened in this committee. Who betrayed Dr. Ford's trust? Who in Feinstein's office recommended Katz as a lawyer? Why did Ms. Ford not know that the committee was willing to go to California?" Graham continued, referring to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Debra Katz, one of Ford's attorneys who has been involved in Democratic politics in the past.

 

 

So first a limited investigation into Kavanaugh, but then a full investigation into the committee. I guess it depends on your priorities: protecting your fellow republicans or find out the truth about a prospective SC justice.

[Becker]

2 hours ago, Srinivas said:

sometimes brilliant sometimes disinfo similar to television,msm lol

but it looks like Diane Feinstein is a little concerend about the scope,of fbi investigation

There is no equivalence between the mainstream (sane) media and the dark web. Only a very confused individual would think so.

[utalkin2me]

I will laugh if kav's stupid little lies in front of the committe are what brings him down. It would serve him right in so many ways.

 

Listen, guilty or not, the way you answer questions like the ones he got are "look, i partied and drank in high school and college, but I have never done anything remotely resembling what Dr Ford describes."

 

That is all he needed to say. He may still get lucky and make it to the supreme court, but those answers he gave should be career ending. He is essentially screaming out he is willing to lie under oath, and manipulate the law as he sees fit. 

[iroc4life]

12 minutes ago, utalkin2me said:

I will laugh if kav's stupid little lies in front of the committe are what brings him down. It would serve him right in so many ways.

 

Listen, guilty or not, the way you answer questions like the ones he got are "look, i partied and drank in high school and college, but I have never done anything remotely resembling what Dr Ford describes."

 

That is all he needed to say. He may still get lucky and make it to the supreme court, but those answers he gave should be career ending. He is essentially screaming out he is willing to lie under oath, and manipulate the law as he sees fit. 

Such nonsense, you would make a good Democrat Senator :). After this investigation and evidence is presented to the FBI. The same evidence as was presented to the Committee, as no-one is going to change testimony already presented under oath, then it will be something else demanded by the looney dems. In the end, he is confirmed. Then in the elections to come, no seats will be gained by the dems ????

[Morch]

1 hour ago, rgraham said:

Ridiculous waste of resources, great job democrats!

 

As opposed to them many worthy investigations initiated by Republicans?

[Morch]

9 minutes ago, Srinivas said:

it's war incase you haven't realized. If one side can throw an unprovable claim

 from a ludicrous emotional child with multiple inconsistencies well the priorities are clear.

 

Are you talking about the "birther" thing?

[Tug]

A real dog and poney show if Donald was concerned about woman’s welfare and harassment he would have insisted on a investigation immeadeatly we all know why he wants this guy for protection pure and simple all bs no real investigation will happen Donald will resist

[puck2]

10 hours ago, zaphod reborn said:

What's incredibly ironic is that Kavanaugh's nomination is going to fail for the same reason that he tried to take down Clinton for a BJ when he was Ken Starr's tool - perjury.  The lies were about small details which didn't directly relate to Ford's allegations, but will be easily verifiable by the FBI's interview of Kavanaugh's high school classmates.  <------->

 

Here we are.

So I hope the FBI will invite Charles "Chad" Ludington, a college friend of Kavanaugh. He confirmed that K. in their common college days in Yale

 

• had drunken often and hefty.

• often has been aggressive and quarrelsome when being drunken.

 

Ludington also said he wouldn't like to denounce K. for his alcohol intake as a young man. But he is worried about K.'s testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee during his Supreme Court confirmation hearing - under oath.

That is just the opposite of what K. said under oath.

 

Result: a judge lying under oath – in every civilized country a criminal act. Maybe not in the REP-dominated USA parliament.

 

What a shame for the LOTUS (Liar Of The …... ) and the SOP (Sordid Old Party) !!!

 

Source: I just read it in the German magazine SPON (Spiegel Online)

Edited October 1, 2018 by puck2

[utalkin2me]

2 hours ago, iroc4life said:

Such nonsense, you would make a good Democrat Senator :). After this investigation and evidence is presented to the FBI. The same evidence as was presented to the Committee, as no-one is going to change testimony already presented under oath, then it will be something else demanded by the looney dems. In the end, he is confirmed. Then in the elections to come, no seats will be gained by the dems ????

I agree with you. And as i said, the only thing that could stop that is himself. This is like one of those athletes that has a 10 inch put for the masters and lips it. The testimony at the hearing was moronic.He is lying when there is no need to lie. He is in a situation where it is hard to lose, but if he does he will have deserved it. 

Edited October 1, 2018 by utalkin2me

[brucec64]

 
Here we are.

So I hope the FBI will invite Charles "Chad" Ludington, a college friend of Kavanaugh. He confirmed that K. in their common college days in Yale

 

• had drunken often and hefty.

• often has been aggressive and quarrelsome when being drunken.

 

Ludington also said he wouldn't like to denounce K. for his alcohol intake as a young man. But he is worried about K.'s testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee during his Supreme Court confirmation hearing - under oath.

That is just the opposite of what K. said under oath.

 

Result: a judge lying under oath – in every civilized country a criminal act. Maybe not in the REP-dominated USA parliament.

 

What a shame for the LOTUS (Liar Of The …... ) and the SOP (Sordid Old Party) !!!

 

Source: I just read it in the German magazine SPON (Spiegel Online)

Perjury is extremely difficult to prove and is very narrowly defined. You have to knowingly and willfully lie, and it has to have material consequences.

In this case, it is just a characterization about drinking. I could be a falling down drunk, but not see myself as such. I could testify that im not a falling down drunk, and would not be lying, even though people around me perceive me as such.

This will get a lot of traction in the press, especially left leaning press, but will not go any further.

Dont forget that Kavanaugh is a federal judge and extremely knowledgeable on the rules around testimony. Even though he appeared to lose control, you can be sure that all of his testimony was planned and rehearsed beforehand.

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Credo]

44 minutes ago, brucec64 said:

Perjury is extremely difficult to prove and is very narrowly defined. You have to knowingly and willfully lie, and it has to have material consequences.

In this case, it is just a characterization about drinking. I could be a falling down drunk, but not see myself as such. I could testify that im not a falling down drunk, and would not be lying, even though people around me perceive me as such.

This will get a lot of traction in the press, especially left leaning press, but will not go any further.

Dont forget that Kavanaugh is a federal judge and extremely knowledgeable on the rules around testimony. Even though he appeared to lose control, you can be sure that all of his testimony was planned and rehearsed beforehand.

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

I don't think the Senate has to charge him with perjury.   If he is not viewed as credible because of a few little porkies and some discrepancies about how much he drank, whether he ever passed out, etc., should be enough to result in not being confirmed.    

 

[EVENKEEL]

Next we'll have kavenaugh's first grade teacher testifying he once cheated on a spelling test.

[BeeDave]

I was not much of a student because I did put partying ahead of school and sports. With my experience you cannot do both and play sports all at the same time.

How did Kavanaugh go out and get drunk, and rape women as much as Liberals seem to think he did? He played Basketball, football and baseball witch he was a star and captain in two, volunteer to charities,  go to church, work on weekends, work out for sports and all the while get the grades to get into Yale?

Once in college his life pretty much remained the same as it was in high school. He was top of his class in Yale and Yale law school and was on the Yale GV basketball team.

I am having trouble figuring out when he managed to go out and do anything other than school, and sports.