|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Looks like Elon Musk has to step down, and pay 20 million in a settlement for the stock manipulation drama. That's a costly tweet.
|
So it turns out that the FBI investigation has limits placed on it by the White House, including not being able to interview some of the bigger names we've seen in the news. You have to wonder if the Senators who pushed for this investigation to happen will be satisfied it is not allowed to follow its natural course and will instead be directed by politicians.
White House limits scope of the FBI's investigation into the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh
The FBI has not been permitted to investigate the claims of Julie Swetnick, a White House official confirmed to NBC News.
WASHINGTON — The White House is limiting the scope of the FBI’s investigation into the sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, multiple people briefed on the matter told NBC News.
While the FBI will examine the allegations of Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez, the bureau has not been permitted to investigate the claims of Julie Swetnick, who has accused Kavanaugh of engaging in sexual misconduct at parties while he was a student at Georgetown Preparatory School in the 1980s, those people familiar with the investigation told NBC News. A White House official confirmed that Swetnick's claims will not be pursued as part of the reopened background investigation into Kavanaugh.
Ford said in Senate testimony Thursday that she was "100 percent" certain that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when they were both in high school. Ramirez alleged that he exposed himself to her when there were students at Yale. Kavanaugh has staunchly denied allegations from Ford, Ramirez and Swetnick.
Instead of investigating Swetnick's claims, the White House counsel’s office has given the FBI a list of witnesses they are permitted to interview, according to several people who discussed the parameters on the condition of anonymity. They characterized the White House instructions as a significant constraint on the FBI investigation and caution that such a limited scope, while not unusual in normal circumstances, may make it difficult to pursue additional leads in a case in which a Supreme Court nominee has been accused of sexual assault.
The limited scope seems to be at odds with what some members of the Senate judiciary seemed to expect when they agreed to give the FBI as much as a week to investigate allegations against Kavanaugh, a federal judge who grew up in the Washington DC area and attended an elite all-boys high school before going on to Yale.
President Donald Trump said on Saturday that the FBI has "free reign" in the investigation. "They’re going to do whatever they have to do," he said. "Whatever it is they do, they’ll be doing — things that we never even thought of. And hopefully at the conclusion everything will be fine."
.....
|
|
|
He was never really CEO material. Good hype man for a private company, but not someone who should be representing the interests of share holders.
Also, that think settled fast. Tesla’s attorneys settled that shit instantly.
|
On September 30 2018 07:56 Saryph wrote:So it turns out that the FBI investigation has limits placed on it by the White House, including not being able to interview some of the bigger names we've seen in the news. You have to wonder if the Senators who pushed for this investigation to happen will be satisfied it is not allowed to follow its natural course and will instead be directed by politicians. White House limits scope of the FBI's investigation into the allegations against Brett KavanaughShow nested quote +
The FBI has not been permitted to investigate the claims of Julie Swetnick, a White House official confirmed to NBC News.
WASHINGTON — The White House is limiting the scope of the FBI’s investigation into the sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, multiple people briefed on the matter told NBC News.
While the FBI will examine the allegations of Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez, the bureau has not been permitted to investigate the claims of Julie Swetnick, who has accused Kavanaugh of engaging in sexual misconduct at parties while he was a student at Georgetown Preparatory School in the 1980s, those people familiar with the investigation told NBC News. A White House official confirmed that Swetnick's claims will not be pursued as part of the reopened background investigation into Kavanaugh.
Ford said in Senate testimony Thursday that she was "100 percent" certain that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when they were both in high school. Ramirez alleged that he exposed himself to her when there were students at Yale. Kavanaugh has staunchly denied allegations from Ford, Ramirez and Swetnick.
Instead of investigating Swetnick's claims, the White House counsel’s office has given the FBI a list of witnesses they are permitted to interview, according to several people who discussed the parameters on the condition of anonymity. They characterized the White House instructions as a significant constraint on the FBI investigation and caution that such a limited scope, while not unusual in normal circumstances, may make it difficult to pursue additional leads in a case in which a Supreme Court nominee has been accused of sexual assault.
The limited scope seems to be at odds with what some members of the Senate judiciary seemed to expect when they agreed to give the FBI as much as a week to investigate allegations against Kavanaugh, a federal judge who grew up in the Washington DC area and attended an elite all-boys high school before going on to Yale.
President Donald Trump said on Saturday that the FBI has "free reign" in the investigation. "They’re going to do whatever they have to do," he said. "Whatever it is they do, they’ll be doing — things that we never even thought of. And hopefully at the conclusion everything will be fine."
.....
Wow. They are more scared than I thought. I'm not sure how this helps Kavanaugh though since if Avennati provides anything credible between now and then it will be pretty easy to cast doubt on the whole investigation.
Having said that, it likely wont matter. If Kavanaugh lied blatantly then they should be able to find that out even if they are only looking at Ramirez and Fords claims. It does give you a good sense of how disengenuous the Republican leadership is though.
|
On September 30 2018 07:57 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2018 07:37 NewSunshine wrote:On September 30 2018 06:35 KwarK wrote:On September 30 2018 02:44 GoTuNk! wrote:The smearing continues.... Now they are insinuating he is a pedophile and published a picture of the basketball team he coaches. I hope the parents sue the shit out of USA Today; wherever you stand on this discussions this is completely despicable and a new low for the media. link below. + Show Spoiler +http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/09/29/usa-today-hit-piece-says-kavanaugh-should-stay-off-basketball-courts-when-kids-are-around.html You should stop reading Fox News. It's propaganda designed to trigger exactly this kind of reaction in you. It's essentially conditioning. They're training their consumers to output emotional responses on demand and feed them a steady diet of high outrage fodder purposefully designed to shortcut the rational thinking part of the brain. You'll be happier if you consume a more balanced variety of media. As many times as I've seen the puppets on Fox News tell their audience not to believe anything so-called elites tell them, despite fitting squarely in the box of elites themselves, and as much as they say not to believe what their eyes and ears are telling them, I can't see Fox News as anything but Orwellian propaganda. Their viewers finish a program less intelligent than when they started. It's the worst source for supporting any point outside of what propaganda is/does/looks like. That is the strangest part of Trump, he is anti elite, while being the exact definition of elite, born elite will die elite, not at all self made.
No. No he isn't. He passed a tax cut that does nothing but make the elite more elite. What has he ever fucking done as President that does anything other than help the elite?
He CLAIMS he's anti-elite, and he doesn't like some specific elites because they laugh at him and think he's stupid (and being President hasn't changed that).
|
On September 30 2018 07:56 Saryph wrote:So it turns out that the FBI investigation has limits placed on it by the White House, including not being able to interview some of the bigger names we've seen in the news. You have to wonder if the Senators who pushed for this investigation to happen will be satisfied it is not allowed to follow its natural course and will instead be directed by politicians. White House limits scope of the FBI's investigation into the allegations against Brett KavanaughShow nested quote +
The FBI has not been permitted to investigate the claims of Julie Swetnick, a White House official confirmed to NBC News.
WASHINGTON — The White House is limiting the scope of the FBI’s investigation into the sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, multiple people briefed on the matter told NBC News.
While the FBI will examine the allegations of Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez, the bureau has not been permitted to investigate the claims of Julie Swetnick, who has accused Kavanaugh of engaging in sexual misconduct at parties while he was a student at Georgetown Preparatory School in the 1980s, those people familiar with the investigation told NBC News. A White House official confirmed that Swetnick's claims will not be pursued as part of the reopened background investigation into Kavanaugh.
Ford said in Senate testimony Thursday that she was "100 percent" certain that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when they were both in high school. Ramirez alleged that he exposed himself to her when there were students at Yale. Kavanaugh has staunchly denied allegations from Ford, Ramirez and Swetnick.
Instead of investigating Swetnick's claims, the White House counsel’s office has given the FBI a list of witnesses they are permitted to interview, according to several people who discussed the parameters on the condition of anonymity. They characterized the White House instructions as a significant constraint on the FBI investigation and caution that such a limited scope, while not unusual in normal circumstances, may make it difficult to pursue additional leads in a case in which a Supreme Court nominee has been accused of sexual assault.
The limited scope seems to be at odds with what some members of the Senate judiciary seemed to expect when they agreed to give the FBI as much as a week to investigate allegations against Kavanaugh, a federal judge who grew up in the Washington DC area and attended an elite all-boys high school before going on to Yale.
President Donald Trump said on Saturday that the FBI has "free reign" in the investigation. "They’re going to do whatever they have to do," he said. "Whatever it is they do, they’ll be doing — things that we never even thought of. And hopefully at the conclusion everything will be fine."
.....
Right, so the people they are allowed to interview has been briefed on a collaborated story to sell and those not allowed to be interviewed are the ones with the proof.
That's what the cynic (realist) in my says.
Aren't you all glad we celebrated how this got out of the Committee so that the Senate can confirm him after a shame of an investigation that has been set up to fail?
And now the spineless Republicans have a convenient accuse to confirm a sexual assault suspect to the Supreme Court.
gg
I would genuinely love to hear some of the Republicans here defend this move to limit the scope when there was already a time limit on the investigation.
How can you defend this move by the White House?
|
On September 30 2018 08:09 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2018 07:56 Saryph wrote:So it turns out that the FBI investigation has limits placed on it by the White House, including not being able to interview some of the bigger names we've seen in the news. You have to wonder if the Senators who pushed for this investigation to happen will be satisfied it is not allowed to follow its natural course and will instead be directed by politicians. White House limits scope of the FBI's investigation into the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh
The FBI has not been permitted to investigate the claims of Julie Swetnick, a White House official confirmed to NBC News.
WASHINGTON — The White House is limiting the scope of the FBI’s investigation into the sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, multiple people briefed on the matter told NBC News.
While the FBI will examine the allegations of Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez, the bureau has not been permitted to investigate the claims of Julie Swetnick, who has accused Kavanaugh of engaging in sexual misconduct at parties while he was a student at Georgetown Preparatory School in the 1980s, those people familiar with the investigation told NBC News. A White House official confirmed that Swetnick's claims will not be pursued as part of the reopened background investigation into Kavanaugh.
Ford said in Senate testimony Thursday that she was "100 percent" certain that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when they were both in high school. Ramirez alleged that he exposed himself to her when there were students at Yale. Kavanaugh has staunchly denied allegations from Ford, Ramirez and Swetnick.
Instead of investigating Swetnick's claims, the White House counsel’s office has given the FBI a list of witnesses they are permitted to interview, according to several people who discussed the parameters on the condition of anonymity. They characterized the White House instructions as a significant constraint on the FBI investigation and caution that such a limited scope, while not unusual in normal circumstances, may make it difficult to pursue additional leads in a case in which a Supreme Court nominee has been accused of sexual assault.
The limited scope seems to be at odds with what some members of the Senate judiciary seemed to expect when they agreed to give the FBI as much as a week to investigate allegations against Kavanaugh, a federal judge who grew up in the Washington DC area and attended an elite all-boys high school before going on to Yale.
President Donald Trump said on Saturday that the FBI has "free reign" in the investigation. "They’re going to do whatever they have to do," he said. "Whatever it is they do, they’ll be doing — things that we never even thought of. And hopefully at the conclusion everything will be fine."
.....
Wow. They are more scared than I thought. I'm not sure how this helps Kavanaugh though since if Avennati provides anything credible between now and then it will be pretty easy to cast doubt on the whole investigation. Having said that, it likely wont matter. If Kavanaugh lied blatantly then they should be able to find that out even if they are only looking at Ramirez and Fords claims. It does give you a good sense of how disengenuous the Republican leadership is though.
Apt title: "The White House Is Running a Sham Investigation to Shield Kavanaugh"
This is remarkable if only for the fact that the random items they appear to be barred from investigating are the EXACT THINGS they need to investigate to get to the truth. Not fucking fishy at all....
"Not only are Ms. Swetnick’s claims not to be included (likely because they are the most scandalous, and because of the president’s feud with Swetnick’s lawyer Michael Avenatti), also off limits are Kavanaugh’s drinking habits and Mark Judge’s employment records at Safeway. Both would be crucial in corroborating the accounts of both Dr. Ford and Ms. Ramirez:
But as of now, the FBI cannot ask the supermarket that employed Judge for records verifying when he was employed there, one of the sources was told. Ford said in congressional testimony Thursday that those records would help her narrow the time frame of the alleged incident which she recalls happening some time in the summer of 1982 in Montgomery County, Maryland.
Two sources familiar with the investigation said the FBI will also not be able to examine why Kavanaugh’s account of his drinking at Yale University differs from those of some former classmates, who have said he was known as a heavy drinker. Those details may be pertinent to investigating claims from Ramirez who described an alleged incident of sexual misconduct she said occurred while Kavanaugh was inebriated. Ramirez’s lawyer said Saturday that she had been contacted by the FBI and would cooperate."
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2018/09/29/the-white-house-is-running-a-sham-investigation-to-shield-kavanaugh/
|
Remember when everyone clamored about an Anita Hill-type FBI investigation? it's amazing the speed at which we've moved the goalposts and no one can even acknowledge it. Everyone wanted an investigation to look into Ford's claim. That is what they are doing. They even threw Ramirez in there. Whether or not you think he lied under oath about his drinking is not at issue, more over his statements haven't even been inconsistent. Again, like the falsehood that still exists in this thread about the White House having knowledge, it appears that people weren't actually listening the testimony but typing while listening, and so listening rather badly.
What's happening is what was always going to happen. people want a fishing expedition. They got their first demand, now we blow right on by to the next one.
As for Avanatii, now the WSJ, in addition to the NYT, (I think) says they have found zero corroborating evidence or witnesses. They are treating it like a farce, and until some evidence appears, it will continue to be treated that way.
To reiterate, the fight was never about his drinking habits until the Democratic senators tried to make that a thing, way after we initially dealt with this FBI nonsense.
|
The Anita Hill investigation didn’t have specific witnesses that were off limits as far as I know. And the Justice Department normally manages investigations. I find it hard to believe that anyone at the Justice Department created the list. If the list was public, we could would have a better understanding of the reasoning why those witnesses are off limits. This news does directly conflict with the statements made yesterday about how much freedom the FBI would be given.
|
On September 30 2018 08:21 Introvert wrote:
Remember when everyone clamored about an Anita Hill-type FBI investigation? it's amazing the speed at which we've moved the goalposts and no one can even acknowledge it. Everyone wanted an investigation to look into Ford's claim. That is what they are doing. They even threw Ramirez in there. Whether or not you think he lied under oath about his drinking is not at issue, more over his statements haven't even been inconsistent. Again, like the falsehood that still exists in this thread about the White House having knowledge, it appears that people weren't actually listening the testimony but typing while listening, and so listening rather badly.
What's happening is what was always going to happen. people want a fishing expedition. They got their first demand, now we blow right on by to the next one.
As for Avanatii, now the WSJ, in addition to the NYT, (I think) says they have found zero corroborating evidence or witnesses. They are treating it like a farce, and until some evidence appears, it will continue to be treated that way.
To reiterate, the fight was never about his drinking habits until the Democratic senators tried to make that a thing, way after we initially dealt with this FBI nonsense. No fishing is needed. The FBI is competent. If you tell them to investigate Ford/Ramirez and give them a week that is what they will do. And if they believe they need to talk to person X for information about that then they should be able to, now they can't.
|
On September 30 2018 08:29 Plansix wrote:
The Anita Hill investigation didn’t have specific witnesses that were off limits as far as I know. And the Justice Department normally manages investigations. I find it hard to believe that anyone at the Justice Department created the list. If the list was public, we could would have a better understanding of the reasoning why those witnesses are off limits. This news does directly conflict with the statements made yesterday about how much freedom the FBI would be given.
This is the statement they put out:
+ Show Spoiler +
They specifically say it is limited to current credible accusations. That means no deep dives into college life, they are looking into specific incidents.
On September 30 2018 08:31 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2018 08:21 Introvert wrote:
Remember when everyone clamored about an Anita Hill-type FBI investigation? it's amazing the speed at which we've moved the goalposts and no one can even acknowledge it. Everyone wanted an investigation to look into Ford's claim. That is what they are doing. They even threw Ramirez in there. Whether or not you think he lied under oath about his drinking is not at issue, more over his statements haven't even been inconsistent. Again, like the falsehood that still exists in this thread about the White House having knowledge, it appears that people weren't actually listening the testimony but typing while listening, and so listening rather badly.
What's happening is what was always going to happen. people want a fishing expedition. They got their first demand, now we blow right on by to the next one.
As for Avanatii, now the WSJ, in addition to the NYT, (I think) says they have found zero corroborating evidence or witnesses. They are treating it like a farce, and until some evidence appears, it will continue to be treated that way.
To reiterate, the fight was never about his drinking habits until the Democratic senators tried to make that a thing, way after we initially dealt with this FBI nonsense. No fishing is needed. The FBI is competent. If you tell them to investigate Ford/Ramirez and give them a week that is what they will do. And if they believe they need to talk to person X for information about that then they should be able to, now they can't.
And I'm sure they will talk to everyone that Ford and Ramirez named. That part doesn't seem to be in dispute.
|
I'm glad they decided Swetnick wasnt credible. They did all of zero work before deciding that. Very legitimate. Most thorough.
|
On September 30 2018 08:33 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2018 08:29 Plansix wrote:
The Anita Hill investigation didn’t have specific witnesses that were off limits as far as I know. And the Justice Department normally manages investigations. I find it hard to believe that anyone at the Justice Department created the list. If the list was public, we could would have a better understanding of the reasoning why those witnesses are off limits. This news does directly conflict with the statements made yesterday about how much freedom the FBI would be given. This is the statement they put out: + Show Spoiler +They specifically say it is limited to current credible accusations. That means no deep dives into college life, they are looking into specific incidents. Show nested quote +On September 30 2018 08:31 Gorsameth wrote:On September 30 2018 08:21 Introvert wrote:
Remember when everyone clamored about an Anita Hill-type FBI investigation? it's amazing the speed at which we've moved the goalposts and no one can even acknowledge it. Everyone wanted an investigation to look into Ford's claim. That is what they are doing. They even threw Ramirez in there. Whether or not you think he lied under oath about his drinking is not at issue, more over his statements haven't even been inconsistent. Again, like the falsehood that still exists in this thread about the White House having knowledge, it appears that people weren't actually listening the testimony but typing while listening, and so listening rather badly.
What's happening is what was always going to happen. people want a fishing expedition. They got their first demand, now we blow right on by to the next one.
As for Avanatii, now the WSJ, in addition to the NYT, (I think) says they have found zero corroborating evidence or witnesses. They are treating it like a farce, and until some evidence appears, it will continue to be treated that way.
To reiterate, the fight was never about his drinking habits until the Democratic senators tried to make that a thing, way after we initially dealt with this FBI nonsense. No fishing is needed. The FBI is competent. If you tell them to investigate Ford/Ramirez and give them a week that is what they will do. And if they believe they need to talk to person X for information about that then they should be able to, now they can't. And I'm sure they will talk to everyone that Ford and Ramirez named. That part doesn't seem to be in dispute.
The limitations appear to be put on by the WH, the Judiciary committee statement calling for the investigation is meaningless to dispute that the FBI has been limited in who they can interview.
|
Seems to me like the burden should be on Avanatti and his client, they are the one making claims. if the prerecorded interview that Swetnick did that is supposed to come out tomrrow is still light on evidence it seems skepticism will certainly be justified, nevermind Avanatti's non-cooperative behavior up to this point.
|
On September 30 2018 08:38 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2018 08:33 Introvert wrote:On September 30 2018 08:29 Plansix wrote:
The Anita Hill investigation didn’t have specific witnesses that were off limits as far as I know. And the Justice Department normally manages investigations. I find it hard to believe that anyone at the Justice Department created the list. If the list was public, we could would have a better understanding of the reasoning why those witnesses are off limits. This news does directly conflict with the statements made yesterday about how much freedom the FBI would be given. This is the statement they put out: + Show Spoiler +They specifically say it is limited to current credible accusations. That means no deep dives into college life, they are looking into specific incidents. On September 30 2018 08:31 Gorsameth wrote:On September 30 2018 08:21 Introvert wrote:
Remember when everyone clamored about an Anita Hill-type FBI investigation? it's amazing the speed at which we've moved the goalposts and no one can even acknowledge it. Everyone wanted an investigation to look into Ford's claim. That is what they are doing. They even threw Ramirez in there. Whether or not you think he lied under oath about his drinking is not at issue, more over his statements haven't even been inconsistent. Again, like the falsehood that still exists in this thread about the White House having knowledge, it appears that people weren't actually listening the testimony but typing while listening, and so listening rather badly.
What's happening is what was always going to happen. people want a fishing expedition. They got their first demand, now we blow right on by to the next one.
As for Avanatii, now the WSJ, in addition to the NYT, (I think) says they have found zero corroborating evidence or witnesses. They are treating it like a farce, and until some evidence appears, it will continue to be treated that way.
To reiterate, the fight was never about his drinking habits until the Democratic senators tried to make that a thing, way after we initially dealt with this FBI nonsense. No fishing is needed. The FBI is competent. If you tell them to investigate Ford/Ramirez and give them a week that is what they will do. And if they believe they need to talk to person X for information about that then they should be able to, now they can't. And I'm sure they will talk to everyone that Ford and Ramirez named. That part doesn't seem to be in dispute. The limitations appear to be put on by the WH, the Judiciary committee statement calling for the investigation is meaningless to dispute that the FBI has been limited in who they can interview.
What I mean by that is that what they called for is exactly what they are getting.
|
On September 30 2018 08:39 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2018 08:38 Gorsameth wrote:On September 30 2018 08:33 Introvert wrote:On September 30 2018 08:29 Plansix wrote:
The Anita Hill investigation didn’t have specific witnesses that were off limits as far as I know. And the Justice Department normally manages investigations. I find it hard to believe that anyone at the Justice Department created the list. If the list was public, we could would have a better understanding of the reasoning why those witnesses are off limits. This news does directly conflict with the statements made yesterday about how much freedom the FBI would be given. This is the statement they put out: + Show Spoiler +They specifically say it is limited to current credible accusations. That means no deep dives into college life, they are looking into specific incidents. On September 30 2018 08:31 Gorsameth wrote:On September 30 2018 08:21 Introvert wrote:
Remember when everyone clamored about an Anita Hill-type FBI investigation? it's amazing the speed at which we've moved the goalposts and no one can even acknowledge it. Everyone wanted an investigation to look into Ford's claim. That is what they are doing. They even threw Ramirez in there. Whether or not you think he lied under oath about his drinking is not at issue, more over his statements haven't even been inconsistent. Again, like the falsehood that still exists in this thread about the White House having knowledge, it appears that people weren't actually listening the testimony but typing while listening, and so listening rather badly.
What's happening is what was always going to happen. people want a fishing expedition. They got their first demand, now we blow right on by to the next one.
As for Avanatii, now the WSJ, in addition to the NYT, (I think) says they have found zero corroborating evidence or witnesses. They are treating it like a farce, and until some evidence appears, it will continue to be treated that way.
To reiterate, the fight was never about his drinking habits until the Democratic senators tried to make that a thing, way after we initially dealt with this FBI nonsense. No fishing is needed. The FBI is competent. If you tell them to investigate Ford/Ramirez and give them a week that is what they will do. And if they believe they need to talk to person X for information about that then they should be able to, now they can't. And I'm sure they will talk to everyone that Ford and Ramirez named. That part doesn't seem to be in dispute. The limitations appear to be put on by the WH, the Judiciary committee statement calling for the investigation is meaningless to dispute that the FBI has been limited in who they can interview. What I mean by that is that what they called for is exactly what they are getting. "Investigate Fords allegations, you can talk to Rick, but not Patty" is not what was asked for, I am sorry.
Leaving out the 3e because of lack of, anything really, I could understand somewhat.
|
On September 30 2018 07:56 Saryph wrote:So it turns out that the FBI investigation has limits placed on it by the White House, including not being able to interview some of the bigger names we've seen in the news. You have to wonder if the Senators who pushed for this investigation to happen will be satisfied it is not allowed to follow its natural course and will instead be directed by politicians. White House limits scope of the FBI's investigation into the allegations against Brett KavanaughShow nested quote +
The FBI has not been permitted to investigate the claims of Julie Swetnick, a White House official confirmed to NBC News.
WASHINGTON — The White House is limiting the scope of the FBI’s investigation into the sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, multiple people briefed on the matter told NBC News.
While the FBI will examine the allegations of Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez, the bureau has not been permitted to investigate the claims of Julie Swetnick, who has accused Kavanaugh of engaging in sexual misconduct at parties while he was a student at Georgetown Preparatory School in the 1980s, those people familiar with the investigation told NBC News. A White House official confirmed that Swetnick's claims will not be pursued as part of the reopened background investigation into Kavanaugh.
Ford said in Senate testimony Thursday that she was "100 percent" certain that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when they were both in high school. Ramirez alleged that he exposed himself to her when there were students at Yale. Kavanaugh has staunchly denied allegations from Ford, Ramirez and Swetnick.
Instead of investigating Swetnick's claims, the White House counsel’s office has given the FBI a list of witnesses they are permitted to interview, according to several people who discussed the parameters on the condition of anonymity. They characterized the White House instructions as a significant constraint on the FBI investigation and caution that such a limited scope, while not unusual in normal circumstances, may make it difficult to pursue additional leads in a case in which a Supreme Court nominee has been accused of sexual assault.
The limited scope seems to be at odds with what some members of the Senate judiciary seemed to expect when they agreed to give the FBI as much as a week to investigate allegations against Kavanaugh, a federal judge who grew up in the Washington DC area and attended an elite all-boys high school before going on to Yale.
President Donald Trump said on Saturday that the FBI has "free reign" in the investigation. "They’re going to do whatever they have to do," he said. "Whatever it is they do, they’ll be doing — things that we never even thought of. And hopefully at the conclusion everything will be fine."
.....
I feel like this plays exactly into Michael Avenatti's hands. If they refuse to let her be questioned and he releases a bunch of sworn statements of people associated with them both backing Swetnick's claim (he's already hinted that he has corroborating witnesses), then he can make the whole thing blow up in the Republicans' faces.
He already did something similar with the whole Stormy Daniels case (rebutted denials by releasing evidence that showed the denials were lies), I'm sure he's not afraid of doing so again. Given that he already implicated Trump in a crime and got Trump's lawyer to plead guilty, it seems reckless of the Republicans to try and pull this stuff with him.
|
On September 30 2018 08:43 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2018 08:39 Introvert wrote:On September 30 2018 08:38 Gorsameth wrote:On September 30 2018 08:33 Introvert wrote:On September 30 2018 08:29 Plansix wrote:
The Anita Hill investigation didn’t have specific witnesses that were off limits as far as I know. And the Justice Department normally manages investigations. I find it hard to believe that anyone at the Justice Department created the list. If the list was public, we could would have a better understanding of the reasoning why those witnesses are off limits. This news does directly conflict with the statements made yesterday about how much freedom the FBI would be given. This is the statement they put out: + Show Spoiler +They specifically say it is limited to current credible accusations. That means no deep dives into college life, they are looking into specific incidents. On September 30 2018 08:31 Gorsameth wrote:On September 30 2018 08:21 Introvert wrote:
Remember when everyone clamored about an Anita Hill-type FBI investigation? it's amazing the speed at which we've moved the goalposts and no one can even acknowledge it. Everyone wanted an investigation to look into Ford's claim. That is what they are doing. They even threw Ramirez in there. Whether or not you think he lied under oath about his drinking is not at issue, more over his statements haven't even been inconsistent. Again, like the falsehood that still exists in this thread about the White House having knowledge, it appears that people weren't actually listening the testimony but typing while listening, and so listening rather badly.
What's happening is what was always going to happen. people want a fishing expedition. They got their first demand, now we blow right on by to the next one.
As for Avanatii, now the WSJ, in addition to the NYT, (I think) says they have found zero corroborating evidence or witnesses. They are treating it like a farce, and until some evidence appears, it will continue to be treated that way.
To reiterate, the fight was never about his drinking habits until the Democratic senators tried to make that a thing, way after we initially dealt with this FBI nonsense. No fishing is needed. The FBI is competent. If you tell them to investigate Ford/Ramirez and give them a week that is what they will do. And if they believe they need to talk to person X for information about that then they should be able to, now they can't. And I'm sure they will talk to everyone that Ford and Ramirez named. That part doesn't seem to be in dispute. The limitations appear to be put on by the WH, the Judiciary committee statement calling for the investigation is meaningless to dispute that the FBI has been limited in who they can interview. What I mean by that is that what they called for is exactly what they are getting. "Investigate Fords allegations, you can talk to Rick, but not Patty" is not what was asked for, I am sorry. Leaving out the 3e because of lack of, anything really, I could understand somewhat.
Who are they not talking to, but should? This isn't about Safeway, is it? Nevermind that they can ask Judge himself about that. It doesn't matter to her recollection of the crime. I suspect we'll find, or someone will leak, the rules and they will just what we'd need for a targeted background investigation relating to these two specific incidents.
But maybe not. I would let the FBI do more or less what they want (since they've been sent out anyways), but the danger is that no one knows where to stop or what is and isn't relevant. For the record the White House claims they are more or less leaving the agents to do their thing, just limiting their scope.
I want more info.
|
United States24799 Posts
Introvert can you clear something up for me. The Whitehouse has imposed a time limit on this investigation and a limit on how it is investigated. The time limit I understand. The second limit I do not. What is the Whitehouse trying to prevent by limiting what the FBI can do with the time allotted? The only thing I can think of is that the Whitehouse is trying to prevent the discovery and/or release of information that Kavanaugh committed crimes. Why would that be an appropriate objective?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
