On Saturday evening, NBC News reported that the Trump Regime "is limiting the scope of the FBI’s investigation into the sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. 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… A White House official confirmed that Swetnick’s claims will not be pursued as part of the reopened background investigation into Kavanaugh."Then Señor Trumpanzee tweeted that he had placed no limitations on the FBI investigation in Kavanaugh's serial sexual misconduct. Trump demanded NBC correct their reporting, which they did, and added that the FBI is "going to do whatever they have to do. 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."
A U.S. official briefed on the matter said its not unusual for the White House to set the parameters of an FBI background check for a presidential nominee. The FBI had no choice but to agree to these terms, the sources told NBC News, because it is conducting the background investigation on behalf of the White House.If the FBI learns of others who can corroborate what the existing witnesses are saying, it is not clear whether agents will be able to contact them under the terms laid out by the White House, the two sources briefed on the matter said.Some areas are off limits, the sources said.Investigators plan to meet with Mark Judge, a high school classmate and friend of Kavanaugh's whom Ford named as a witness and participant to her alleged assault.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.The conditions under which the FBI's reopened background check are occurring appears to differ from the one envisioned by Flake, who used his leverage as a swing vote to pressure the Trump administration to order the FBI investigation.Flake said Friday he thought the FBI should decide the scope of the investigation.“They’ll have to decide-- the FBI you know, how far that goes,” he told reporters. “This is limited in time and scope and I think that it's appropriate when it's a lifetime appointment and allegations this serious and we ought to let people know that we're serious about it.”An administration official familiar with the process clarified, after the publication of this story, that while investigators may not be interviewing Swetnick herself, that doesn't preclude them from asking other witness about the allegations she has made.
Flake is unsure if Kavanaugh lied at the hearing???Trump said the FBI has "free rein." Do you believe him? He lies constantly-- and so does Kavanaugh. Nathan Robinson penned an essay for Current Affairs, How Do We Know Kavanaugh Is Lying?. "The truth or falsity," he wrote, "of the allegation against Kavanaugh is extremely important; if it’s true, not only did he attack a woman three decades ago, but he lied shamelessly about it under oath, forcing Ford through a humiliating public process that led to her receiving death threats. If what Ford says is true, then not only should Brett Kavanaugh not be confirmed to the Supreme Court, but he should be impeached and removed from the federal judiciary entirely, disbarred, and prosecuted for perjury. The stakes here are high: if Kavanaugh did it and is confirmed, then a sexual assailant and sociopathic liar will be given one of the most powerful offices in the country (wouldn’t be the first time).
In this case, when we examine the testimony of Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford honestly, impartially, and carefully, it is impossible to escape the following conclusions:1 Brett Kavanaugh is lying.2 There is no good reason to believe that Christine Blasey Ford is lying. This does not mean that she is definitely telling the truth, but that there is nothing in what Kavanaugh said that in any way discredits her account.I want to show you, clearly and definitively, how Brett Kavanaugh has lied to you and lied to the Senate. I cannot prove that he committed sexual assault when he was 17, and I hesitate to draw conclusions about what happened for a few minutes in house in Maryland in the summer of 1982. But I can prove quite easily that Kavanaugh’s teary-eyed “good, innocent man indignant at being wrongfully accused” schtick was a facade. What may have looked like a strong defense was in fact a very, very weak and implausible one.
His first lie was when he claimed "I never attended a gathering like the one Dr. Ford describes in her allegation." ... "He never attended a small gathering in Bethesda where people were drinking beer?" Robinson: "It’s impossible to believe Kavanaugh when he says he never attended any event 'like the one Dr. Ford describes.' It was a very typical low-key high school event, and it would have been shocking if Kavanaugh never attended such a thing. Indeed, he admits it himself... [T]his was a weird lie to tell, because everyone goes to these sorts of events and he had them on his own calendar."Kavanaugh perjured himself in front of the Senate by saying he never went to parties with the people described by Ford. Yet right one his own calendar he describes an event where he went with P.J. and Mark Judge (and Chris Garrett, nicknamed "Squi," a former boyfriend of Ford's) to do some skis (cocaine). So no-- on July 1 he was neither in the library studying nor in church praying. The guy's a compulsive liar and lies even though his lies are easily disproven. Robinson shreds one dishonest claim after another in his carefully constructed essay.
Kavanaugh is very careful to admit to only the most minor and excusable of mistakes in high school. So he won’t even acknowledge that he drank underage, saying the “drinking age was 18, and yes, the seniors were legal and had beer there.” Only the legal ones had beer. Now, Kavanaugh was simply wrong about the drinking age: it was raised to 21 in Maryland when he was 17. (Coincidentally, it was raised on July 1, 1982, the very day Kavanaugh was knocking back a few brewskis [or, more likely, snorting some coke] with P.J., Squi, and Judge.) And since Kavanaugh was 17 rather than 18, what he says doesn’t even matter, because either way he was drinking underage! Some people have called this a lie, but perhaps studious young Brett, who only ever took the smallest of sips, was simply unaware of the state’s laws. I’m more interested in the way Kavanaugh won’t admit to anything that could undermine his image as a straight-A choirboy type.His decision to present himself as squeaky clean, rather than wayward but subsequently redeemed, brings us to some of the most absurd untruths of Kavanaugh’s whole testimony. The evidence that he was more than an ordinary social drinker is voluminous. His yearbook lists him as treasurer of the “Keg City Club,” and his entry says “100 Kegs or Bust,” apparently referring to a “campaign by his friends to empty 100 kegs of beer during their senior year.” It also says he was the “biggest contributor” to the Beach Week Ralph Club, which he admitted was a reference to vomiting. Here’s Liz Swisher, a Yale classmate of Kavanaugh’s who is now chief of the gynecologic oncology division at the University of Washington School of Medicine:“Brett was a sloppy drunk, and I know because I drank with him. I watched him drink more than a lot of people. He’d end up slurring his words, stumbling… There’s no medical way I can say that he was blacked out. . . . But it’s not credible for him to say that he has had no memory lapses in the nights that he drank to excess.”Here’s Daniel Livan, who lived in Kavanaugh’s dorm:“I definitely saw him on multiple occasions stumbling drunk where he could not have rational control over his actions or clear recollection of them… His depiction of himself is inaccurate.”Judging the Judge by Nancy OhanianJames Roche, Kavanaugh’s freshman year roommate at Yale, says Kavanaugh was “frequently incoherently drunk,” and that “he became aggressive and belligerent” when he was drunk. Here’s Republican ex-pharmaceutical executive Lynn Brooks, another Yale classmate who roomed with Kavanaugh’s second accuser, Deborah Ramirez:“He’s trying to paint himself as some kind of choir boy… You can’t lie your way onto the Supreme Court, and with [his self-description in the FOX interview], he’s gone too far. It’s about the integrity of that institution.” Kavanaugh says that as a federal judge, he has been investigated up and down. You know who else was a federal judge? Alex Kozinski, the judge Kavanaugh himself clerked for, who turned out to have engaged in decades of sexual harassment without consequence and who even assaulted a woman on live television without it impeding his career. Kavanaugh is not stupid, yet he defends himself with lines like “if such as thing had a happened, it would’ve been the talk of campus,” even though it definitely wouldn’t since frat brothers engage in casual disgusting behavior all the time. And they get away with it, as Kavanaugh might be expected to have noticed, because of people like Kavanaugh’s former employer Ken Starr, who failed to investigate serious campus rape allegations when he served as a university president.Kavanaugh must also know full well that men get away with sexual misbehavior for innumerable reasons: they can sue you, they can publicly discredit you, they can cause you to be inundated with death threats, they can make you a national punchline, they can beat the shit out of you. The reason women don’t report is precisely because they know uncorroborated allegations will be dismissed! They know that “I am a federal judge, therefore I would not do this” somehow actually flies as a defense in the United States Senate!
