Early this morning, the Washington Post ran an opinion piece by columnist Greg Sargent, Another Trump coverup? Former FBI agents question limits on probe of Kavanaugh that didn't dilly-dally around. "The White House," wrote Sargent, "appears to be playing all kinds of crafty rhetorical games to obscure the answer to a simple question: Has it deliberately placed limits on the scope of the FBI’s renewed background check into allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh, or not?" It's the question everyone in the country following this story is asking. "You’ll be startled to hear that instead of providing clarity," Sargent's tongue stuck in his cheek, "White House officials have sown further confusion... Kellyanne Conway told CNN that, while the investigation will be 'limited in scope,' the White House is not setting those limits, which will be 'up to the FBI' to set. Conway pointed to President Trump’s weekend tweet saying the FBI should 'interview whoever they deem appropriate,' and insisted (somehow without dissolving into giggles at her own disingenuousness) that Trump respects the FBI’s 'independence.'"Then they claimed the Senate-- or at least Republican senators-- suddenly have some kind of power to tell the FBI what to do, which is patently absurd. The White House and some GOP senators appear to have worked out a directive to make the scope of the investigation "as narrow as possible," although there is no paperwork on this. Apparently Kavanaugh's penchant for lying is off limits for the investigation, especially now that Flake indicated he would vote against confirmation if he's convinced the nominee lied to the Seante. Sargent questioned former FBI agents on the limits.
“It’s not an investigation if the FBI is going to accept the dictates of the White House in terms of who you can interview and who you can’t,” John Mindermann, a former FBI special agent who investigated the Watergate break-in, told me. Mindermann added that the idea of such a limited investigation is “ridiculous” and that if this holds, “it would be unprofessional, it would be grossly incomplete, and it would be unfair to the American public.”...NBC News reports that limits imposed by the White House counsel on the FBI’s investigation preclude questioning former classmates who have contradicted Kavanaugh’s accounts of his drinking. Indeed, other former classmates who have tried to offer the FBI information about him tell the Times and the New Yorker that they haven’t been interviewed. Democrats have pointed out that Kavanaugh’s drinking should be examined because his minimizing of it goes to the core of his credibility, and at any rate, it appears central to the sexual assault allegations themselves.Indeed, Mindermann told me that a “complete investigation” would include talking to more people “in all of the venues in which Kavanaugh interacted-- private school, parties, law school.” Mindermann added that if the FBI “did the job they should and can do, I would be very surprised if they did not find relevant, very significant additional information about Kavanaugh.”“A complete background check investigation will not be possible without the ability to interview classmates and associates and anybody with knowledge of the circumstances in the time frame in question,” Dennis Franks, a former FBI agent with two decades of experience, added in an interview with me. “The circumstances in this matter deal with allegations of extensive drinking and behavior while intoxicated. This would normally be an issue that is addressed.”...You’d think that for lawmakers making this enormously consequential decision about a lifetime appointment to the nation’s highest court, it would be better to have more information at their disposal rather than less. But it does not appear that the White House and Republican senators agree.
A Sunday Reuters poll by Ipsos showed 42% of Americans, primarily Democrats, believe sexual misconduct allegations against Kavanaugh, while 27%, primarily Republicans, don't.Of course Sargent isn't the only one trying to get to the bottom of the confusion surrounding the parameters of the FBI investigation. The New Yorker sent their own FBI-- Jane Mayer and Ronan Farrow-- to find out. Is it true that the White House told the FBI they could only question 4 witnesses. Is this thing really just going to be a "whitewash?" Mayer and Farrow wrote that "The White House spokesman Raj Shah defended the process, and released a statement that placed responsibility for any limitations on the Senate. 'The scope and duration has been set by the Senate. The White House is letting the FBI agents do what they are trained to do,' his statement said. Shah accused Senate Democrats of merely wanting to 'further delay and politicize' the investigation rather than being genuinely concerned about its integrity." This is absurd. The Senate can't tell the FBI what to do; the White shouldn't... but could if Trump wants to.One of Kavanaugh's Yale classmates offering evidence that wasn't even looked into said "I thought it was going to be an investigation but instead it seems it’s just an alibi for Republicans to vote for Kavanaugh."
On Sunday, a second Yale classmate, Charles Ludington, released a statement accusing Kavanaugh of blatantly mischaracterizing his college drinking during his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week. Ludington said that Kavanaugh often grew “belligerent and aggressive” when drunk, and that he had planned to share his information with the F.B.I. “I can unequivocally say that in denying the possibility that he ever blacked out from drinking, and in downplaying the degree and frequency of his drinking, Brett has not told the truth,” Ludington wrote. “I felt it was my civic duty to tell of my experience while drinking with Brett, and I offer this statement to the press. I have no desire to speak further publicly, and nothing more to say to the press at this time. I will however, take my information to the F.B.I.” The Times reported that Ludington, a professor at North Carolina State University, said that the F.B.I.’s D.C. field office had told him to go to the Bureau’s Raleigh, North Carolina, field office on Monday if he wished to speak with agents. Ludington said that he intended to do so and “tell the full details of my story.” A lawyer representing Kavanaugh did not respond to a request for comment about Ludington’s statement.According to the Times, the four witnesses approved by the White House for interviews by the F.B.I. are Judge; P. J. Smyth, another high-school friend of Kavanaugh’s; Leland Keyser, a high-school friend of Ford’s; and Ramirez. (Lawyers for Smyth and Keyser have issued statements saying that their clients will coöoperate with the investigation, though Keyser’s told CBS that she will tell the F.B.I. that she does not know Kavanaugh or remember the party where Ford’s alleged assault took place. Keyser has also stressed, however, that she believes Ford and does not refute her testimony.)Leah Litman, an assistant professor of law at the University of California, Irvine, said the severe restrictions on the scope of the investigation made it “a joke.” She asked, “What kind of an investigation into an assault that happened under the influence of alcohol doesn’t include investigating the accused’s use of alcohol?” She said, “Usually, the F.B.I. investigators aren’t told who to call and who not to.” She said that Rasor should be interviewed, given her past relationship with Judge. “If Mark Judge is on the ‘approved’ list of witnesses, and they are interviewing him, there is no reason not to interview Rasor, who has testimony that is very relevant to his credibility, and the testimony that he would offer,” she said....Democratic officials with experience overseeing F.B.I. background investigations disputed that there was anything procedurally routine thus far in the F.B.I.’s renewed investigation into Kavanaugh. Robert Bauer, who served as the White House counsel to President Obama, said that he had overseen numerous F.B.I. background investigations and never seen one so circumscribed. “The F.B.I. should have the latitude to determine what is necessary in a credible, professional inquiry,” he said. “The issue on the table is, Did he or didn’t he engage in the conduct that Dr. Ford alleged?” To reach the answer, he said, “The F.B.I. needs to utilize its expertise to investigate. But instead the White House has dictated a restricted investigative plan. So it’s contaminated at the core.”
From the Trump CodeUPDATE: Trump Yields... MaybeThe White House now claims they've authorized the FBI to expand its abbreviated investigation into sexual misconduct allegations against Judge Brett Kavanaugh by interviewing anyone it deems necessary as long the review is finished by the end of the week... The new directive came in the past 24 hours after a backlash from Democrats, who criticized the White House for limiting the scope of the bureau’s investigation into President Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court. The FBI has already completed interviews with the four witnesses its agents were originally asked to talk to." A thorough investigate might take 8 days, not seven. Or it might take 2 weeks instead of one-- or a month. The FBI should determine that, not someone determined to burn-rush a drunken asshole onto the Court.
