Honest, open question: What would the FBI be investigating re Kavanaugh?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

Even assuming there’s no issue with a statute of limitations, would there be a federal issue to give the FBI jurisdiction here?

I’m not questioning the need for the FBI to look into him, I’m just wondering as to what angle they could use.

[Grasswire2]

1. federal bureau of INVESTIGATION

As we have been repeatedly told this afternoon by FBI former investigators.

They do background checks. They would seek out witnesses, give Kav a lie detector test, question his....etc.

But the request for more investigation has to come from the WH. That's the problem.

[ecstatic]

2. I think it would involve interviews with everyone involved as part of the vetting

process of determining if he should get security clearance? I'm thinking it won't be like a criminal investigation and more like reopening their standard job seeker/candidate investigation.

[elleng]

4. Right

[Hortensis]

61. Looking for witnesses for either side occurs. She says she

didn't tell anyone, but how about the two jocks? I'd think they'd examine every detail of her story, such as identifying the location and comparing her statements with it, interviewing whoever threw the party, etc., etc., etc.

[elleng]

3. Standard background check,

expanded with newly divulged facts.

[bitterross]

12. Exactly right. His background check makes ANYTHING fair game.

When the FBI does a background check on some one they don't just talk to the people the person lists to interview. They go beyond that and interview people several times removed.

It's called due diligence. I know after college when my roommate was having a background check by the FBI just for a simple low-level clearance they asked me all sorts of things and asked who else they should speak to.

[bettyellen]

5. The background check is their turf- they can decide to do this even if Trump doesn't ask them to.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

9. i hope you're right

It would make sense for the FBI to have some autonomy in this situation.

[bettyellen]

13. But it's unlikely they will- but they can. And the judicial committee could likewise request it-

I think they’d fold before they let that happen.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

14. bipartisan request

Imagine a bipartisan request from the committee for an investigation. Oh, to have such a world.

[john657]

15. No, they can't.

The background vetting has already been closed, they handed the file and the letter to the WH, they've even said that without Trump ordering them to do an additional check, their hands are tied.


https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2018-09-17/the-latest-kavanaugh-accuser-willing-to-talk-to-congress

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Latest on the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh (all times local):

8:15 p.m.

The Justice Department says the sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh "does not involve any potential federal crime" for the FBI to investigate.

The department said in a statement Monday night that the FBI's role during background investigations is to evaluate whether the nominee could pose a national security risk and then provide that information "for the use of the decision makers."

The department says it's not the job of the FBI to judge the significance or the credibility of an accusation.

[flotsam]

16. That's BS from the "Just Us" dept.

If Kavanaugh pulled an armed bank robbery when he was 17 the statute of limitations would preclude trial and negate punishment. But if that was brought forward as an accusation at this stage you bet your ass they would investigate and report back as part of vetting. It's about character, not due process...

[john657]

18. Bank robbery is a federal crime

sexual assault is not, it's a state crime.

Like it or not, the FBI has no jurisdiction on a state crime, it would be up to the State of Maryland to initiate an investigation and or file charges, which just isn't going to happen.

Trump has to direct the FBI to further vet Kavanaugh, without his directive, the FBI's hands are tied.

What are the chances Trump will order the FBI to further vet Kavanaugh?

[flotsam]

20. Here's the thing

They vet his moral character-they need not charge him. If he molested animals or wagged his weenie they need to confirm and report his actions...

[john657]

21. You're missing the point,

the FBI has already closed the BGC and handed the file and the letter to the WH, per the FBI, Trump has to direct them to further vet him, which we all know ain't going to happen.

They are forbidden from opening up the BGC again on their own, and they can't open an investigation on the sexual assault allegation, it's not a federal crime, so no jurisdiction.

I know it sucks, but that's just the way it is.

[flotsam]

22. No argument there

I think we just got our streams crossed. Gonna be a long weekend and who knows what Monday brings?

[john657]

23. Hopefully Monday brings the news that K has withdrawn his nomination,

that would be wonderful news, along with the infant idiot in the WH getting indicted by Mueller.

[CreekDog]

25. Cut the bullshit, the FBI reopens background investigations all the time, even background ones

You come here and not only do you post patently false stuff, it also happens to be the latest Republican talking point.

It's bullshit and I'm calling it out.

Don't try to get the folks here to believe bullshit.

[CreekDog]

29. good catches, both of them

thank you

[john657]

32. Sexual assault is not a federal crime,

it's a state crime, the FBI has no jurisdiction in a state crime, if you don't believe me, google is your friend.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/920


Court Martial?

is guilty of rape and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

You do know that the Military is Federal don't you?

It's only a federal crime if committed on federal property or against a federal employee.

Neither applies in this instance.

[lagomorph777]

71. It doesn't have to be a crime. FBI Background Investigations can disqualify a candidate for lots of

reasons: gambling addiction would be very high on the list, as would alcohol addiction, a history of perjury, or sexual assault, regardless of statute of limitations.

[john657]

72. True,

What I'm saying is that the FBI can't just open an investigation on this allegation, it's not in their jurisdiction, it's a state or local jurisdiction.

[lagomorph777]

73. Very hard for me to believe that average US Govt employee seeking a clearance would get such a pass.

The FBI would re-open their BI immediately; no presidential order would be required. I'm aware this is not about a security clearance, but a SCOTUS Justice can do WAY more damage than somebody (say) who processes payroll at NSA. There should be no hesitation to find the facts.

[Lee-Lee]

38. You don't know what your talking about

You posted a link to the article of the UCMJ that covers it.

Unless he was on Active Duty in the US Military at the time that link you posted has exactly 0.00% relevance or applicability in this case.

Unless the allegend crime happened on Federal property, involved the crossing of state lines in the commission of the crime, or was done by someone subject to the UCMJ it isn’t a Federal Crime.

There is absolutely nothing in Professor Fords allegations that is a violation of Federal law.

Before you call people liars you should probably actually understand the law and not just post links to laws that don’t apply at all.

[john657]

45. Thank you.

At least they did the right thing and deleted the post.

[JonLP24]

60. I was disputing the claim it wasn't a federal crime

Which it is. I self deleted so there wouldn't be any more replies. While Dr. Ford's account may not be a federal crime sexual assault or rape is.

[john657]

63. What you posted was from the UCMJ, which has zero bearing on what

Dr. Ford is alleging, that is a state crime and the FBI has no jurisdiction to investigate it.

[JonLP24]

65. I know what I posted which was listing it as a federal crime

I found even more US laws but I didn't appreciate being told I don't know what I'm talking about so I self deleted.

Kavanaugh is a sexual predator.

[john657]

67. Again, it has no bearing on Dr. Ford's allegation,

and Kavanaugh is not a sexual predator, he's only been accused of sexual assault, not proven, yet, and there's, so far, no proof that he's a sexual predator.

I, unlike many here, including you, believe someone is innocent until proven guilty, which, in my opinion, hasn't happened, yet.

There are a myriad of reasons for him to be denied a confirmation, lying to congress under oath is a pretty huge one.


I've got a business to run.

Have a great and peaceful day.

[JonLP24]

68. There is plenty of proof

Her account. His drinking buddy's writings and both have a known history of being blackout drunk.

A former sex-crimes prosecutor analyzed Ford’s allegations against Kavanaugh. Here’s her take.

Are the details Ford did mention more telling?
Perhaps more striking are the details Ford did mention.

Fairstein said sexual assault rarely happens with witnesses present. Yet Ford puts two people in the room — Kavanaugh and his prep school classmate, Mark Judge, whom she called “an essential witness.”

“To me, it’s compelling that [Ford] puts someone else there, and that the person who happens to be in the room has a blackout drinking problem," said Fairstein. Judge, now a filmmaker and author, described himself similarly in his book “Wasted: Tales of a Gen-X Drunk.” “That’s sort of the intoxicated behavior she described that night,” she added.

“Ford mentioned details — like the pool party, the narrow staircase, that the house was in Montgomery County. There are enough facts for someone to remember it was their party and their house,” said Fairstein.

Wigdor echoed Fairstein, saying: “She put a third person in the room. If you were making something up, why would you do that?”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/2018/09/18/former-sex-crimes-prosecutor-analyzed-fords-allegations-against-kavanaugh-heres-her-take/

I strongly disagree there hasn't been any proof.

[john657]

70. Then we'll just agree to strongly disagree with each other.

Later.

[Lee-Lee]

74. Your definition of proof isn't what the legal system uses

A story without any evidence supporting it is not proof.

His buddy’s writing don’t address the incident and don’t do anything for the case.

[JonLP24]

75. Plenty of sexual assault and rape are never brought up in a legal system

His buddy's writings prove he doesn't have respect for women, loves the ambiguous middle ground, black out drunk. Read the link from a former prosecutor.

He nearly killed her.

[john657]

31. Well, you better tell the FBI that, because that's what they're saying,

and I'll believe them before I believe you.

Call it out all you want, I don't give a rat's ass, but you can google it and find out for yourself.

Republican talking point? No, it's an FBI talking point.

Welcome to ignore.

[forthemiddle]

42. If Senator Feinstein had forwarded the letter in July

It would have been included in the background check.
It's too late now, and to say that this is "new" info is not correct, She knew it in July.
Even if she requested that Ford was kept anonymous the letter would have been included, and the FBI could have at least questioned Kavanaugh, his friend Judge, and anyone else named.

Her lawyer even states that Ford wrote the letter in July, so it could be looked into.

This is exactly what Grassleys defence will be.

[Hortensis]

66. If Feinstein had sent it in July, the Repubs would have had

2 months to swiftboat her into having to flee the nation, clean up the mess, and ram the confirmation through LAST WEEK after only 8 days of confirmation hearing.

Instead, although our senate Democrats are severely handicapped here, they have nevertheless managed to throw this confirmation on the ropes. And while we waited, watching very closely no doubt, the WaPo investigated and confirmed the claimant's credibility.

As for "Grassley's defense," the confirmation process is meant to be investigation of all aspects of a nominee. This one started 2 weeks ago. The average confirmation takes about 10 weeks, but there's no limit on it.

The Repubs have been presented with this information and still have 2 months, or 10, to do what they are now supposed to do -- their job. Their problem is that they're desperate to ram through confirmation without investigation. Before more deadly information comes out about their nominee, and before people finally start caring about the credible and documented accusations of criminal behavior made by Senate Democrats during the hearing that the Repubs are repeatedly refusing to investigate.

So lets not be useful idiots for the Republicans by pushing their lie that we had a duty to tip them off long before they were able to start blocking the official confirmation investigation. All commentators had agreed we had no chance of blocking this nomination, but we just may.

[lagomorph777]

69. BI and SBI (well within FBI jusrisdiction) can definitely turn up lots of things that are not crimes

but are completely disqualifying for the position in question.

[Arazi]

40. Why wouldn't the MD AG open an investigation?

[Lee-Lee]

43. They would need more info to justify it

It’s most likely a local issue and not state level. Every state is different but I know in NC it would not be an allegation that rises enough for a state level investigation. It would be the city PD if in the city limits or County Sheriff if outside.

The problem is at this point they don’t have enough information. What we have is “I was assaulted more than 3 decades ago by this person, this other person was there. I am not sure where it happened, or when, and I don’t even remember who else was there who could help verify my story and I don’t know how I got there or got home or who drove me”.

You can’t do much with that. If it was an allegation from 35 days ago you could, because it would be far easier to track movements and find people. It would still be a hard place to start from but it’s doable. 3.5 years ago would be a lot harder. 35 years ago? Good luck.

Hell, with her unable to say for sure where it happened they can’t even for sure say who has jurisdiction to investigate.

And it all has to be viewed from the frame of prosecutorial possibility. Is there any chance given what we have now of any prosecutor taking that case to trial? Nope. Is there any chance at this point of finding staring enough evidence? No. There isn’t any physical evidnce, there isn’t any record of people’s locations on the date even if we knew what date to look at, any witnesses found at this point would be of questionable believability on the stand given how much time has passed. Chances of a conviction are bear zero.

[CreekDog]

28. background checks can be reopened, they get reopened all the time

you'll note that no statutory citation was included because it was PR people BS and not anything to do with the law.

former FBI agents are all over tv tonight explaining that investigations can be reopened for lots of reasons including new information or questions.

don't play that agenda here.

[honest.abe]

46. You are really working hard defending Trump's nominee.

[john657]

47. And that would be a lie.

I've stated numerous times that he's unqualified due to he lying under oath to congress, and because of his stances on important issues.

[honest.abe]

48. Then admit you are wrong about your claim FBI can't reopen background checks.

Re Creekdog's post: https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211150669#post28

[john657]

49. Again another lie.

I never said they can't re-open the BGC, I said they can't re-open it without the WH directing them to.

Before you accuse someone of lying, you really should get your "facts" straight.

[honest.abe]

50. Please cite something that says only the WH can order the FBI to reopen a background check.

I dont trust your opinion... if that is what it is.

[john657]

51. What? Are you too lazy to google it yourself?

Here, just for you.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/407081-trump-hasnt-asked-fbi-to-investigate-kavanaugh-accusations-yet-report

President Trump has not asked the FBI to look into the sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh as of Monday afternoon, according to Bloomberg News.

Two people familiar with the matter told the news outlet that in order for an additional investigation to take place, the White House would need to request one since Kavanaugh’s initial background check has been completed.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Hill on whether Trump has requested the FBI take action.

Christine Blasey Ford came forward on Sunday and publicly discussed her allegations against Kavanaugh for the first time, days before a scheduled vote on his nomination by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

[honest.abe]

53. Such a nasty tone.

It says "two people familiar with the matter". I wouldn't say that is definitive. Creekdog said there were former FBI agents are all over tv last night explaining that investigations can be reopened for lots of reasons. Not sure if they mentioned the need for WH request.

Regardless the public should be pushing for reopening the background checks. Its ridiculous and defeatist to just say it cant be done. That is exactly what the Republicans and Trump want us to think.

[john657]

54. When I am called a liar, then yes, I tend to get nasty, sorry about that.

Yes, BGC do get re-opened frequently, but it has to be requested by the agency/company/WH for the FBI to re-open a closed BGC.

There is nothing defeatist about telling the truth, I'm sorry you can't seem to accept this, but it's just what it is.

So far, I've done everything you've asked me to do.
Is there anything else?

Oh, I would appreciate an apology for implying that I was lying.

[honest.abe]

55. I didn't call you a liar. You called me a liar.. twice.

Bye.

[john657]

56. You implied that I was lying,

and yes, I said you were lying, twice, because you did.

Never mind about the apology, worthless anyway.

Have a good day.

[honest.abe]

57. No. I implied that you were wrong and defending the nominee.

You often take the position that is contrary to our side. Not sure why.

[john657]

58. No, I'm taking the position that nothing has been proven

yet and that he, and she, both deserve to be heard.
I've also taken the position that, in our society, there is a presumption of innocence, what's wrong with that?

You just can't admit that you're wrong about me can you?

[honest.abe]

59. We shall see. Time will tell.

[honest.abe]

77. Here you go..

Laurence Tribe
@tribelaw
Exactly right. The idea that only POTUS can reopen an FBI background check when new information comes to light is pure BS. It was never true, and it’s a lie today.

[john657]

79. Here you go.

Laurence Tribe is debunked by a former FBI agent who now teaches at Yale.

Link to tweet

The appropriate entity to investigate the allegation as a *criminal* matter is Maryland LE. If the WH wants to expand/reopen the background check (which is not the same as a criminal investigation), the FBI can interview the relevant people/witnesses involved in the allegation.

Hmmm, who to believe?
Laurence Tribe or Asha Rangappa?
I'll take the word of an FBI agent against Tribe's.


You're making this to easy.

[honest.abe]

80. You are confused.

The issue Tribe is referring to is regarding the BS that only the WH can reopen the background check.

Your 'expert' agent doesnt debunk that at all.

Good bye and good night.

[john657]

81. Re read the post,

here, I'll even bold it for you.

The appropriate entity to investigate the allegation as a *criminal* matter is Maryland LE. If the WH wants to expand/reopen the background check (which is not the same as a criminal investigation), the FBI can interview the relevant people/witnesses involved in the allegation.

Notice the the bolded part?

You really, really are making this too easy.

[honest.abe]

82. You reread it.

That doesnt say only the WH can reopen it.

I figured you would refuse to accept this.

Bye again.

[john657]

83. Every active and former FBI agent has said the same thing,

for them to re open the BGC, the WH, IE: Trump, would have to direct them to, and it wouldn't include an investigation into the sexual assault allegation.

But if you want to continue in your fantasy, despite the evidence to the contrary, have at it, but don't blame me when you're shown to be completely wrong.

[honest.abe]

85. I believe Tribe.

Not sure we have heard from "every active and former FBI agent". That sounds like fantasy to me.

Bye bye.. for real ths time.

[john657]

86. Yeah, just as I thought.

Waste of my time.

[honest.abe]

87. Yes, you are wasting your time.

I would suggest not replying to me and we will all be much happier!

[john657]

84. Here, I'll repost this.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/407081-trump-hasnt-asked-fbi-to-investigate-kavanaugh-accusations-yet-report

President Trump has not asked the FBI to look into the sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh as of Monday afternoon, according to Bloomberg News.

Two people familiar with the matter told the news outlet that in order for an additional investigation to take place, the White House would need to request one since Kavanaugh’s initial background check has been completed.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Hill on whether Trump has requested the FBI take action.

Christine Blasey Ford came forward on Sunday and publicly discussed her allegations against Kavanaugh for the first time, days before a scheduled vote on his nomination by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Notice the bolded paragraph?

I've now provided you with two sources backing up my claims.

I could keep on going, but I have the feeling that you'll just dismiss it again and won't admit you're wrong, so, at this point in time, I'm not going to waste anymore time with you.

Have a good night.

[JonLP24]

62. I have noticed or at least clear Kavanaugh of these claims

[dweller]

6. death threats on Dr. Ford and her family?

would be a matter

[librechik]

7. The FBI have a vetting team that does nothing but background checks. That's how Porter was caught

This process is what is being requested (I was just told on MSNBC All In)

[BannonsLiver]

8. The gambling thing is what I'm most curious about

I think he did what Dr. Ford said he did, but the other stuff is just below it on the list of red flags.

[Kaleva]

10. It's a job of the FBI to vet nominees.

[FBaggins]

33. Yes... but that's FOR the White House.

They’re part of the vetting process. They could easily re-open their investigation if the White House wanted more vetting to be done…

... Clearly, they don’t want that. Which should be telling.

[RockRaven]

11. For potential-for-blackmail reasons, background checks include even things which are legal

or not prosecutable. Anything which could embarrass him, cause him to fear his wife or family finding out, put financial pressure upon him, etc which someone could use as leverage to influence his execution of his duties is something they have the authority to investigate. This certainly falls into that basket.

[emulatorloo]

17. It would be a part of the standard background check the the FBI does

[WillowTree]

24. Of which they've already done at least 5 or 6 for the various jobs that he's had.

[bdamomma]

19. I hope there is

another person comes into the picture. They are rushing this appointment through for tRump to protect his ass. This stinks to high heaven, I loathe the re pigs. This is a life long position this man can do so much damage to coming generations of Americans, he's as dirty as tRump.

[Arazi]

41. I had hoped that too before I heard what's happening to Dr Ford now

I doubt anyone else will come forward now after seeing what she's going through

[Spider Jerusalem]

27. More thorough background check, they did it for Anita Hill (n/t)

[FBaggins]

36. They didn't do it "for" Hill

Her allegations were already part of their initial investigation. Their determination was “inconclusive” And the committee decided not to push forward with anything.

It was only after that portion of the background check was leaked to the media that Hill decided to come forward. The White House then had the FBI reopen their investigation.

The difference, of course, is that Democrats ran the committee and were unwilling to proceed without it:

[MaryMagdaline]

30. Violent assault allegation against a federal employee

Rob Porter, other white house people have to go through it

Friend who is IRS special agent freaks out if one of her kids gets a ticket. The higher up you are, the more intensive the background investigation.

Since this is a new allegation, I assume she means an investigation should be made and the report given to those who would hire him.

[Lee-Lee]

35. No

There is no Federal jurisdiction that goes retroactive to events decades ago to give the FBI criminal jurisdiction over events like this.

An IRS Special Agent must maintain a current security clearance and can lose it. There is no security clearance for a SCOTUS Justice.

[Lee-Lee]

34. I work with Federal Background Checks for my job. It's VERY limited what they will/can do

They will interview Professor Ford, Mr Judge and maybe Kavanaugh about it.

They will check local police records to see if any reports were made that would back up the allegations.

They will follow up with “developed references”, people who they find along the way who may have knowledge of events. First hand knowledge is what they will be seeking.

They will then put all that in the files. Person X said this, person Y said that, no evidence to back allegations found in local police records.

They will no be giving people polygraphs, they wil not be doing hostile interviews, they will not be cross examining people poking holes in stories, they will not be serving search warrants.

They will interview the people involved, add transcripts of the interviews of the record, say if they found anything in the record to substantiate claims from anyone, and that’s it.

For any criminal investigation it would be the local police department. But that’s a hard one to start since she said she can’t actually recall when or where it happened, so they don’t even know what local PD should take the lead.

[Sancho]

37. Did Kavanaugh lie????

Did he lie about Ford?
Did he lie about gambling?
Did he lie about the stolen Senate documents?
etc., etc.

It seems clear that the FBI did NOT do a good job on this guy the first time. We can speculate why, but at this point he needs to checked out correctly.

[FSogol]

44. The better question is why was the FBI investigation a sham? No mention of debts mysteriously paid

off, gambling debts, credit card debt, sexual harassment, aggressive drunken nights, attempted rape allegations?

What did the FBI check? He didn't have any overdue library books?

[WhiteTara]

52. They do background checks and

trump wouldn't allow it.

[MoonRiver]

64. I think they investigate/do background checks on all SCOTUS nominees.

I believe they already investigated Kavanaugh. Based on Dr. Ford's allegations, this would just be a continuation of that process.

[saidsimplesimon]

76. Really, Tommy?

If the FBI can decide to investigate Mrs. Clinton without any crimes committed....connect the dots.

[Las Vegas Mixx]

78. ... other than Trump surrogate witness tampering ??

Link to tweet