|
On September 27 2018 02:42 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2018 01:17 xDaunt wrote:
I like how willfully obtuse the Swetnick declaration is. The crux of her claims is dependent upon other witnesses, but she doesn't name any of them. The bottom line is that she didn't witness anything. At most she heard things from other people. And of course, the demand here, as always, is delay, delay delay. None of these accusers has done anything to even help with the "investigation." Ford won't provide her psych records or polygraph test results. Ramirez won't testify. And Swetnick/Avenatti won't name names beyond Kavanaugh and Judge. She says she was drugged and raped by that group. Even if she doesn’t remember it clearly, she would know if she had sex once she was no longer drugged.
Frankly, that's the least objectionable part of her declaration. I don't have any problem with the idea that someone who is drugged may not remember what happened next. Here's what I do have a problem with:
1) Presuming that the reports that I am seeing are accurate regarding her age, why is Swetnick partying with high school students when she is 20?
2) Why is she repeatedly attending parties at which girls are being drugged and raped? Is she complicit in this?
3) If these parties are as prevalent as she claims they are in her declaration, why has no one else come forward saying that this happened? Not even Ford goes this far. Why didn't the FBI pick up on any of this during background checks?
4) Who are these "other women" who observed Kavanaugh grind and touch girls while he was drunk?
5) How did she "become aware of efforts by Judge, Kavanaugh, and others to spike the punch" at the parties she attended? She clearly didn't see it, so who told her?
6) Who are the other boys who were allegedly raping drugged women?
At worst, here's all that can be gleaned from Swetnick's declaration on its face: Kavanaugh was grabby and drunk at these parties, but otherwise he was merely there. She didn't witness him do anything beyond that.
|
1: the parties seem to be based around the local community of residents, not age groups. Also it’s the early 80s so who knows.
2: hind sight is 20/20, maybe she never really believed it until after it happened to her.
3: rape victims don’t report rapes for fear their community will turn on them. These fears have been validated for decades by various communities.
4: why would she put other women in an affidavit?
5: why would she put more details in an affidavit than that basic informion?
6: again, why put that in the affidavit when she can testify or provide better information to law enforcement directly.
And considering Kavanaugh just did an interview on Fox claiming to be a nice boy who didn’t party during high school, all evidence seems to point that he was nothing of the sort. Which does not help his creditable, even without these accusations.
But let’s assume he never did any of those things, but his high school friends did and he was aware of it. That would still disqualify him from being a judge.
|
The reason why I am asking about the lack of corroborating information is that she (through her attorney) is demanding an investigation. All three of these women want their respective claims investigated, yet none of them is willing to provide evidence to support that investigation. Doesn't that strike you as problematic?
|
On September 27 2018 03:31 xDaunt wrote:
The reason why I am asking about the lack of corroborating information is that she (through her attorney) is demanding an investigation. All three of these women want their respective claims investigated, yet none of them is willing to provide evidence to support that investigation. Doesn't that strike you as problematic?
I don’t find it problematic at all.
Evidence to be provided to whom exactly? The hyper political senate Judiciary Committee that is not law enforcement, a court and has no standards or rules for evidence? Have any of the three refused to provide more detailed evidence to the FBI if an investigation took place?
|
On September 27 2018 04:20 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2018 03:31 xDaunt wrote:
The reason why I am asking about the lack of corroborating information is that she (through her attorney) is demanding an investigation. All three of these women want their respective claims investigated, yet none of them is willing to provide evidence to support that investigation. Doesn't that strike you as problematic? I don’t find it problematic at all. Evidence to be provided to whom exactly? The hyper political senate Judiciary Committee that is not law enforcement, a court and has no standards or rules for evidence? Have any of the three refused to provide more detailed evidence to the FBI if an investigation took place?
Of course the evidence should go to the committee. They are the ones who will be making a decision, so it all has to go them anyway. It’s not like the committee is just going to sit on it (maybe Feinstein would). They have actively been following up on all of this stuff with federal investigators.
|
On September 27 2018 04:25 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2018 04:20 Plansix wrote:On September 27 2018 03:31 xDaunt wrote:
The reason why I am asking about the lack of corroborating information is that she (through her attorney) is demanding an investigation. All three of these women want their respective claims investigated, yet none of them is willing to provide evidence to support that investigation. Doesn't that strike you as problematic? I don’t find it problematic at all. Evidence to be provided to whom exactly? The hyper political senate Judiciary Committee that is not law enforcement, a court and has no standards or rules for evidence? Have any of the three refused to provide more detailed evidence to the FBI if an investigation took place? Of course the evidence should go to the committee. They are the ones who will be making a decision, so it all has to go them anyway. It’s not like the committee is just going to sit on it (maybe Feinstein would). They have actively been following up on all of this stuff with federal investigators.
The alleged victims willing to testify/be interviewed is not sufficient evidence to refer the matter to the FBI? What else would the Senators need? Any why can’t they just call up the attorneys for these folks and ask?
|
What's stopping the FBI from determining on their own that investigating the claims against Kavanaugh (and the proliferation of them for that matter), is something they should do?
|
On September 27 2018 06:06 GreenHorizons wrote:
What's stopping the FBI from determining on their own that investigating the claims against Kavanaugh (and the proliferation of them for that matter), is something they should do?
I might be wrong, but from what I understand they don't have the authority to open an investigation on their own, since the crimes would be state jurisdiction. I think there's a way for local police to ask for help from the FBI? But otherwise they need to be directed to look into it.
|
On September 27 2018 06:09 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2018 06:06 GreenHorizons wrote:
What's stopping the FBI from determining on their own that investigating the claims against Kavanaugh (and the proliferation of them for that matter), is something they should do? I might be wrong, but from what I understand they don't have the authority to open an investigation on their own, since the crimes would be state jurisdiction. I think there's a way for local police to ask for help from the FBI? But otherwise they need to be directed to look into it.
The FBI investigates all sorts of shit that has nothing to do with local police or anyone else asking them to, why would this be different? I'm going to presume the FBI thinks there's nothing worth investigating unless someone can show me why they don't have the autonomy to investigate this themselves.
|
On September 27 2018 06:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2018 06:09 ChristianS wrote:On September 27 2018 06:06 GreenHorizons wrote:
What's stopping the FBI from determining on their own that investigating the claims against Kavanaugh (and the proliferation of them for that matter), is something they should do? I might be wrong, but from what I understand they don't have the authority to open an investigation on their own, since the crimes would be state jurisdiction. I think there's a way for local police to ask for help from the FBI? But otherwise they need to be directed to look into it. The FBI investigates all sorts of shit that has nothing to do with local police or anyone else asking them to, why would this be different?
Again, I'm no expert, but I think most of the stuff they investigate is related to a federal crime somehow, and for state stuff they're theoretically just helping out. Don't get me wrong, I doubt they worry much about the distinction in virtually any other situation, and the FBI is often involved in everything from local crimes to international stuff. But here, with a highly politicized investigation and a bureau that's already under fire from the administration for (alleged) anti-Republican bias, they're not gonna open an investigation without every i dotted and t crossed.
Or I might be totally misunderstanding the jurisdictional thing, in which case my apologies.
|
On September 27 2018 06:32 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2018 06:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2018 06:09 ChristianS wrote:On September 27 2018 06:06 GreenHorizons wrote:
What's stopping the FBI from determining on their own that investigating the claims against Kavanaugh (and the proliferation of them for that matter), is something they should do? I might be wrong, but from what I understand they don't have the authority to open an investigation on their own, since the crimes would be state jurisdiction. I think there's a way for local police to ask for help from the FBI? But otherwise they need to be directed to look into it. The FBI investigates all sorts of shit that has nothing to do with local police or anyone else asking them to, why would this be different? Again, I'm no expert, but I think most of the stuff they investigate is related to a federal crime somehow, and for state stuff they're theoretically just helping out. Don't get me wrong, I doubt they worry much about the distinction in virtually any other situation, and the FBI is often involved in everything from local crimes to international stuff. But here, with a highly politicized investigation and a bureau that's already under fire from the administration for (alleged) anti-Republican bias, they're not gonna open an investigation without every i dotted and t crossed. Or I might be totally misunderstanding the jurisdictional thing, in which case my apologies.
I'm reasonably confident the FBI has the autonomy to look into a federal judge lying under oath. The idea that the FBI has to wait for Republicans or the white house to do it seems to just be part of Democrats newfound blind trust/faith in the FBI and a poor excuse/explanation for why the FBI doesn't seem to care if Kavanaugh is lying or they simply believe him.
The FBI could look deeper into this stuff if they wanted to and are CHOOSING not to best I can tell.
|
On September 27 2018 06:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2018 06:32 ChristianS wrote:On September 27 2018 06:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2018 06:09 ChristianS wrote:On September 27 2018 06:06 GreenHorizons wrote:
What's stopping the FBI from determining on their own that investigating the claims against Kavanaugh (and the proliferation of them for that matter), is something they should do? I might be wrong, but from what I understand they don't have the authority to open an investigation on their own, since the crimes would be state jurisdiction. I think there's a way for local police to ask for help from the FBI? But otherwise they need to be directed to look into it. The FBI investigates all sorts of shit that has nothing to do with local police or anyone else asking them to, why would this be different? Again, I'm no expert, but I think most of the stuff they investigate is related to a federal crime somehow, and for state stuff they're theoretically just helping out. Don't get me wrong, I doubt they worry much about the distinction in virtually any other situation, and the FBI is often involved in everything from local crimes to international stuff. But here, with a highly politicized investigation and a bureau that's already under fire from the administration for (alleged) anti-Republican bias, they're not gonna open an investigation without every i dotted and t crossed. Or I might be totally misunderstanding the jurisdictional thing, in which case my apologies. I'm reasonably confident the FBI has the autonomy to look into a federal judge lying under oath. The idea that the FBI has to wait for Republicans or the white house to do it seems to just be part of Democrats newfound blind trust/faith in the FBI and a poor excuse/explanation for why the FBI doesn't seem to care if Kavanaugh is lying or they simply believe him. The FBI could look deeper into this stuff if they wanted to and are CHOOSING not to best I can tell.
At least according to the WSJ, the bureau said the allegations didn't involve a federal crime so they weren't opening an investigation. Again, I think "should the FBI investigate" has become a sufficiently politicized question that they'd be very hesitant to take a technicality like "well technically the alleged behavior would contradict some of his sworn testimony and perjury is a federal crime so we have free rein," especially when paranoia about a political bias at the bureau is already running so high. Read into it what you want to, but I really don't think you can discern much about the quality of the evidence from the FBI's apparent decision not to open an investigation all on their own.
Of course, iirc the FBI has a policy of not commenting on the existence of an ongoing investigation, so maybe they actually are investigating as we speak? But otherwise, I think they basically need Trump's permission.
|
On September 27 2018 06:47 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2018 06:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2018 06:32 ChristianS wrote:On September 27 2018 06:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2018 06:09 ChristianS wrote:On September 27 2018 06:06 GreenHorizons wrote:
What's stopping the FBI from determining on their own that investigating the claims against Kavanaugh (and the proliferation of them for that matter), is something they should do? I might be wrong, but from what I understand they don't have the authority to open an investigation on their own, since the crimes would be state jurisdiction. I think there's a way for local police to ask for help from the FBI? But otherwise they need to be directed to look into it. The FBI investigates all sorts of shit that has nothing to do with local police or anyone else asking them to, why would this be different? Again, I'm no expert, but I think most of the stuff they investigate is related to a federal crime somehow, and for state stuff they're theoretically just helping out. Don't get me wrong, I doubt they worry much about the distinction in virtually any other situation, and the FBI is often involved in everything from local crimes to international stuff. But here, with a highly politicized investigation and a bureau that's already under fire from the administration for (alleged) anti-Republican bias, they're not gonna open an investigation without every i dotted and t crossed. Or I might be totally misunderstanding the jurisdictional thing, in which case my apologies. I'm reasonably confident the FBI has the autonomy to look into a federal judge lying under oath. The idea that the FBI has to wait for Republicans or the white house to do it seems to just be part of Democrats newfound blind trust/faith in the FBI and a poor excuse/explanation for why the FBI doesn't seem to care if Kavanaugh is lying or they simply believe him. The FBI could look deeper into this stuff if they wanted to and are CHOOSING not to best I can tell. At least according to the WSJ, the bureau said the allegations didn't involve a federal crime so they weren't opening an investigation. Again, I think "should the FBI investigate" has become a sufficiently politicized question that they'd be very hesitant to take a technicality like "well technically the alleged behavior would contradict some of his sworn testimony and perjury is a federal crime so we have free rein," especially when paranoia about a political bias at the bureau is already running so high. Read into it what you want to, but I really don't think you can discern much about the quality of the evidence from the FBI's apparent decision not to open an investigation all on their own. Of course, iirc the FBI has a policy of not commenting on the existence of an ongoing investigation, so maybe they actually are investigating as we speak? But otherwise, I think they basically need Trump's permission.
That would make sense if everything they investigated involved a federal crime, but that's not the case. As well as potentially lying under oath clearly being a federal crime. If they thought there was any potential that a SC judge nominee was corrupt enough to lie under oath they would have full and righteous reign to investigate.
They can't possibly think there's any reasonable suspicion that Kavanaugh is lying or are more worried about political optics than preventing someone they think could be lying under oath from a lifetime appointment to the SCOTUS.
Or the more likely explanation is that the FBI and Kavanaugh are heavily influenced by the same group of Republicans/corporations and investigating him would be shooting themselves in the foot, not because of political optics but because they want him on SCOTUS too.
None of the reasonable explanations leave the FBI as any better than Trump or the rest of Republicans.
|
I mean, I'm not gonna defend the FBI overall right now, but what doesn't hold water here? Maybe they could use the perjury angle to justify it, but they're already taking a lot of heat right now for making decisions about what to investigate or not in a way that people think is biased against Republicans. Both Republican senators and the administration have very publicly taken the position that this is not the FBI's jurisdiction; if they opened their own investigation that would be explicitly against the administration's position, which would already be a pretty political stand from them. If they did it anyway, they would presumably do it secretly, so you and I wouldn't even know the investigation was taking place (and maybe they did!). The alternatives would be publicly saying "Republicans are wrong, this is our jurisdiction and these claims are worth investigating," which would be an extremely political stand, or staying out of it until both sides agree they should investigate.
If you're saying "the FBI is refusing to outright oppose the administration here, obviously they don't see enough value in pursuing this for that to be worth it," then yeah, I suppose that's true. But it would at least be in pursuit of depoliticizing the FBI, which I think is a worthy goal. All things considered, I think "we're staying out of it unless both sides agree we should be involved" is a pretty defensible position for them.
|
The FBI can’t just investigate, they have to be told to investigate the claims against Kavanaugh. They could totally do it on the down low, but they can’t tell anyone. Which sort of defeats the purpose, because yo, they gotta give that info to the senate. And god help the agents of congress found out they were just investigating a Supreme Court nominee just because they felt like it.
|
On September 27 2018 07:15 ChristianS wrote:
I mean, I'm not gonna defend the FBI overall right now, but what doesn't hold water here? Maybe they could use the perjury angle to justify it, but they're already taking a lot of heat right now for making decisions about what to investigate or not in a way that people think is biased against Republicans. Both Republican senators and the administration have very publicly taken the position that this is not the FBI's jurisdiction; if they opened their own investigation that would be explicitly against the administration's position, which would already be a pretty political stand from them. If they did it anyway, they would presumably do it secretly, so you and I wouldn't even know the investigation was taking place (and maybe they did!). The alternatives would be publicly saying "Republicans are wrong, this is our jurisdiction and these claims are worth investigating," which would be an extremely political stand, or staying out of it until both sides agree they should investigate.
If you're saying "the FBI is refusing to outright oppose the administration here, obviously they don't see enough value in pursuing this for that to be worth it," then yeah, I suppose that's true. But it would at least be in pursuit of depoliticizing the FBI, which I think is a worthy goal. All things considered, I think "we're staying out of it unless both sides agree we should be involved" is a pretty defensible position for them.
I'm saying the FBI isn't concerned enough that Kavanaugh is lying or that it matters enough to bother looking into it, or the most charitable version being they are more concerned about the political optics than putting a criminal on the SCOTUS.
None of which makes the FBI any better than the Republicans or Trump. The other plausible explanation you're suggesting is that it's possible they are doing the investigation (which undermines the previous explanations) and all these theatrics are completely pointless.
The whole thing is a shitshow imo that everyone involved (save the victims), including Democrats, should be ashamed of.
On September 27 2018 07:22 Plansix wrote:
The FBI can’t just investigate, they have to be told to investigate the claims against Kavanaugh. They could totally do it on the down low, but they can’t tell anyone. Which sort of defeats the purpose, because yo, they gotta give that info to the senate. And god help the agents of congress found out they were just investigating a Supreme Court nominee just because they felt like it.
Even if there was some non-binding memo suggesting that they should be told to investigate (there is btw, this isn't law), the narrative they can't investigate Kavanaugh without being told to is patently false. What you guys are misunderstanding is that they "can't" (using that loosely here) open up a criminal investigation into rape allegations, but they can fully open up an investigation about Kavanaugh not being truthful in his testimony without anyone telling them to.
|
On September 27 2018 07:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2018 07:15 ChristianS wrote:
I mean, I'm not gonna defend the FBI overall right now, but what doesn't hold water here? Maybe they could use the perjury angle to justify it, but they're already taking a lot of heat right now for making decisions about what to investigate or not in a way that people think is biased against Republicans. Both Republican senators and the administration have very publicly taken the position that this is not the FBI's jurisdiction; if they opened their own investigation that would be explicitly against the administration's position, which would already be a pretty political stand from them. If they did it anyway, they would presumably do it secretly, so you and I wouldn't even know the investigation was taking place (and maybe they did!). The alternatives would be publicly saying "Republicans are wrong, this is our jurisdiction and these claims are worth investigating," which would be an extremely political stand, or staying out of it until both sides agree they should investigate.
If you're saying "the FBI is refusing to outright oppose the administration here, obviously they don't see enough value in pursuing this for that to be worth it," then yeah, I suppose that's true. But it would at least be in pursuit of depoliticizing the FBI, which I think is a worthy goal. All things considered, I think "we're staying out of it unless both sides agree we should be involved" is a pretty defensible position for them. I'm saying the FBI isn't concerned enough that Kavanaugh is lying or that it matters enough to bother looking into it, or the most charitable version being they are more concerned about the political optics than putting a criminal on the SCOTUS. None of which makes the FBI any better than the Republicans or Trump. The other plausible explanation you're suggesting is that it's possible they are doing the investigation (which undermines the previous explanations) and all these theatrics are completely pointless. The whole thing is a shitshow imo that everyone involved, including Democrats, should be ashamed of.
For the record, I don't think they're actually investigating, I was just pointing out that the only scenario in which they could is if they didn't tell anyone.
It's always easy in politics to throw your hands up and say "Bah, everybody's terrible" (and usually pretty true, at least broadly speaking), but what specifically do you think everyone is doing that's so shameful? I think the Republicans have had some pretty embarrassing comments about sexual assault in general, present allegations aside. Most of them are to the effect of "think how horrible it would be to be falsely accused, I can scarcely imagine" - it's obvious how easily they can empathize with the rich powerful white man accused of misdeeds, and how difficult it is for them to empathize with an assault victim. I guess I haven't seen nearly as much of Democrats' reactions. Most of them are saying "these are serious allegations that deserve an investigation," which doesn't particularly bother me. A few seem a bit eager to make public shows of their disgust (I think there's a Senator from Hawaii who's been pretty loud about it?), which is kinda gross. But statements like "I believe the women" seem pretty innocuous to me.
Is there something else you think they should be ashamed of, or do you think I'm too charitable to the reactions I listed (or both)?
|
On September 27 2018 07:40 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2018 07:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2018 07:15 ChristianS wrote:
I mean, I'm not gonna defend the FBI overall right now, but what doesn't hold water here? Maybe they could use the perjury angle to justify it, but they're already taking a lot of heat right now for making decisions about what to investigate or not in a way that people think is biased against Republicans. Both Republican senators and the administration have very publicly taken the position that this is not the FBI's jurisdiction; if they opened their own investigation that would be explicitly against the administration's position, which would already be a pretty political stand from them. If they did it anyway, they would presumably do it secretly, so you and I wouldn't even know the investigation was taking place (and maybe they did!). The alternatives would be publicly saying "Republicans are wrong, this is our jurisdiction and these claims are worth investigating," which would be an extremely political stand, or staying out of it until both sides agree they should investigate.
If you're saying "the FBI is refusing to outright oppose the administration here, obviously they don't see enough value in pursuing this for that to be worth it," then yeah, I suppose that's true. But it would at least be in pursuit of depoliticizing the FBI, which I think is a worthy goal. All things considered, I think "we're staying out of it unless both sides agree we should be involved" is a pretty defensible position for them. I'm saying the FBI isn't concerned enough that Kavanaugh is lying or that it matters enough to bother looking into it, or the most charitable version being they are more concerned about the political optics than putting a criminal on the SCOTUS. None of which makes the FBI any better than the Republicans or Trump. The other plausible explanation you're suggesting is that it's possible they are doing the investigation (which undermines the previous explanations) and all these theatrics are completely pointless. The whole thing is a shitshow imo that everyone involved, including Democrats, should be ashamed of. For the record, I don't think they're actually investigating, I was just pointing out that the only scenario in which they could is if they didn't tell anyone. It's always easy in politics to throw your hands up and say "Bah, everybody's terrible" (and usually pretty true, at least broadly speaking), but what specifically do you think everyone is doing that's so shameful? I think the Republicans have had some pretty embarrassing comments about sexual assault in general, present allegations aside. Most of them are to the effect of "think how horrible it would be to be falsely accused, I can scarcely imagine" - it's obvious how easily they can empathize with the rich powerful white man accused of misdeeds, and how difficult it is for them to empathize with an assault victim. I guess I haven't seen nearly as much of Democrats' reactions. Most of them are saying "these are serious allegations that deserve an investigation," which doesn't particularly bother me. A few seem a bit eager to make public shows of their disgust (I think there's a Senator from Hawaii who's been pretty loud about it?), which is kinda gross. But statements like "I believe the women" seem pretty innocuous to me. Is there something else you think they should be ashamed of, or do you think I'm too charitable to the reactions I listed (or both)?
Did we agree on the FBI being able to investigate Kavanaugh if they want to and are choosing not to or just moving on? Either's fine I'm just curious.
There's so much I don't really know where to start. I guess from the point that they've known all along Kavanaugh (or at minimum someone just like him as far as judge stuff) was going to the SCOTUS and this has all been a show.
If they actually wanted to stop him they would have forced Republicans to do this without Democrats participating. They would have to come up with some procedural trickery just to get him out of committee (need a Democrat there by the rules to establish a quorum before you can vote to move him out of committee), and he would be the one and only justice confirmed in such an obscenely partisan way (presuming they could figure out how to get him through in the first place).
Then they would be bargaining from a position of power where their participation would be conditional on the types of investigations they are grandstanding about. Then either they get them or their not participating is justified by the refusal to meet reasonable expectations about looking into Kavanaugh's record public and personal.
But the point never was to stop Kavanaugh, the point was to appear to have done everything they could to stop/slow the inevitable confirmation of Kavanaugh, and then immediately act as if Republicans acting in their political interest regarding Kavanaugh is somehow distinctively different than whichever Democrats do the same thing. As it has been for the many times Democrats have supported Trump's nominees or policies so far.
It's particularly shameful because they all know what's going on and are letting these women get dragged so they can score what they think are big political points.
I don't know if you saw it discussed earlier, but the part people are really missing (I think I saw this thing compared to Roy Moore specifically in the other thread) is that this doesn't even really work for them politically. Roy Moore overwhelmingly won white women, Trump won white women as well, this Kavanaugh charade isn't going to be the one that changes that.
The whole thing is shameful to me in that these are supposed to be the leaders and most respected people among us and they are all a bunch of clowns.
|
The DOJ said the FBI will not be investiging Kavanaugh. The FBI does what the DOJ says, because the DOJ is their boss. They “could” investigate Kavanaugh, but any agents that did that would likely lose their jobs.
|
On September 27 2018 08:08 Plansix wrote:
The DOJ said the FBI will not be investiging Kavanaugh. The FBI does what the DOJ says, because the DOJ is their boss. They “could” investigate Kavanaugh, but any agents that did that would likely lose their jobs.
You saying the FBI doesn't investigate anything the DOJ doesn't specifically direct them to? Because I don't think that's true or would make sense. Also, if there's reason to believe Kavanaugh is lying and your boss won't let you investigate, you probably shouldn't want to keep working for someone who would put a liar (not to mention the piling up of sexual assault allegations) on the SCOTUS before allowing a reasonable suspicion to be investigated. More so if they point at politics as an excuse.
I wasn't leaving Sessions out of my criticism before either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
