Media Are Super Enthused To Use FBI To Investigate Kavanaugh (To Slow Down The Whole Process)

Numerous officials have pointed out time and again that the FBI is the wrong agency to investigate the claims by Christine Blasey Ford. The FBI has stated that they aren’t the agency to do this. Another background check would do nothing. Six previous ones were just fine. But, partisan media being partisan media. Here’s the Washington Post Editorial Board

Slow down, Senate Republicans. The FBI should investigate.

A LAWYER for Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her three decades ago, says her client wants to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee — just not on Monday, when Republicans have scheduled a hearing. The reason is simple: “No legitimate investigation is going to happen between now and Monday,” and Ms. Ford wants the FBI to investigate the incident before she speaks. Republicans’ bristling response suggests they care more about ramming through Mr. Kavanaugh’s confirmation than about the veracity of Ms. Ford’s allegations.

To listen to GOP senators, Ms. Ford could have no reasonable motive for hesitating to testify. Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) released a statementdeclaring that demands for an FBI investigation are about “delaying the process until after the midterm elections.” He told The Post’s Seung Min Kim that “this has been a drive-by shooting when it comes to Kavanaugh.”

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), who is running the confirmation process, argued it was irrelevant to Ms. Ford whether the FBI investigated her accusations. “Dr. Ford’s testimony would reflect her personal knowledge and memory of events,” he said. “Nothing the FBI or any other investigator does would have any bearing on what Dr. Ford tells the committee, so there is no reason for any further delay.”

That claim is patently absurd. Ms. Ford has an obvious interest in professionals gathering information that could corroborate her story before she faces a hostile panel of senators on live national television. A real investigation could inform senators’ questioning about the alleged event and give Ms. Ford information she could cite to strengthen her claims.

Right, 36 years later, a time for which she can offer few details, and both her and her lawyers have offered contradicting claims. And the FBI doesn’t investigate local crimes for which no federal statute was broken. But, the WPEB thinks they have the hook

The FBI is the right organization to conduct an investigation. Lying to the FBI is a crime, making the stakes much higher for anyone caught dissembling about the alleged assault. Also, FBI professionals are far more likely to conduct a fair inquiry than partisan senators at a last-minute hearing.

Nope, still doesn’t work like that, especially since this smacks of using the FBI like the East German Stasti, attempting to catch someone in a lie rather than investigating whether a crime was actually committed.

But, the whole idea is to simply run out the clock in the hope that the Democrats regain the Senate, and then demand that no vote on Kavanaugh is held till the new Democrats take their seats in January. The same as the LA Times Editorial Board

Christine Blasey Ford is right. Investigate Kavanaugh first, then hold hearings


There’s no guarantee that an investigation would bring any more clarity, or that its findings would make a difference in how the committee questions Ford and Kavanaugh. But given the stakes here, it could only help to have the FBI try to shed more light on the situation before the hearing is held.

Yet Grassley is standing firm. In a letter to the lawyers released on Wednesday, he repeated his invitation for Ford to testify on Monday, advising that if she decided to appear, her prepared remarks must be submitted by Friday at 10 a.m. As for the FBI, he insisted: “It is not the FBI’s role to investigate a matter such as this.”

Given the stakes here, it could only help to have the FBI try to shed more light on the situation before the hearing is held.

This is an obstructionist response that does no favors for Kavanaugh. As Grassley acknowledges elsewhere in his letter, it’s common practice for the FBI to conduct background investigations for Supreme Court nominees. While these aren’t criminal investigations, they do seek to acquire information about a nominee’s character.

Let’s say the FBI did investigate. They’d most likely state “we found no federal laws were broken, and we have no idea if any laws were even broken, because this occurred 36 years, there are zero witnesses to this happening, and there are lots of contradictions in Ms. Fords testimony.” The six background investigations already done by the FBI are not mentioned in the editorial.

The LA Times even tries bringing up the investigation after Anita Hill made her allegations. Totally different. The FBI was the correct law enforcement agency, as the incident occurred on federal property by federal employees. And wraps up with

It may well prove that the FBI will turn up nothing about an incident that allegedly occurred more than three decades ago that will make it any easier for senators to choose between the conflicting accounts of Kavanaugh and his accuser. But given the gravity of Ford’s allegations and the lifetime office to which Kavanaugh has been nominated, a rush to hold hearings is unnecessary and unseemly.

In other words, let’s run the clock out. In fact, a hearing on Monday is the proper format. If someone made a false allegation against you, you’d want it settled quickly. You’d want the chance to go on the record quickly to rebut those allegations. And if Ms. Ford is suddenly shy after putting out the letter to Diane Feinstein, giving information to the Washington Post, speaking here and there, allowing her lawyer to yammer away, well, that’s on her. She made the accusation: it’s on her to prove it.

The NY Times Editorial Board hints at using the FBI, but, is still attempting to take a different tactic by pushing for a long, long, long, involved Senate investigation which could take a long, long time. To run out the clock.

And, of course, every elected Democrat got the talking points memo.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

19 Responses to “Media Are Super Enthused To Use FBI To Investigate Kavanaugh (To Slow Down The Whole Process)”

  1. Jethro says:

    The FBI investigated the claims against Clarence Thomas at the behest of President Reagan.

    “The six background investigations already done by the FBI are not mentioned in the editorial.”

    But you stated the FBI only investigated potential federal crimes. Why did they conduct 6 investigations of Kavanaugh?

    What does the GOP fear?

    • Nighthawk says:

      I think you meant Bush, not Reagan.

      At the time of these alleged sexual misconducts by Thomas he was a FEDERAL appeals court judge and that is when Hill alleges these things took place. That would make it a federal matter and under FBI jurisdiction. This is not the case with Kavanaugh 36 years ago.

      The 6 ‘investigations’ by the FBI of Kavanaugh were NOT criminal investigations but background checks which is all the FBI is required to do. They also did this with this letter. They read it, found no way to be able to accurately check the claims in it so they redacted it and sent it to the White House to be included in Kavanaugh’s background check file.

      The GOP has nothing to hide but it seems that the Dems, Ford and her lawyers are tripping over themselves to backpedal and obstruct.

      • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

        I think you meant Bush, not Reagan.

        The nignorant angry little black fella also thought Reagan also invaded Panama.

      • Jethro says:

        I think you meant Bush, not Reagan.

        You are absolutely right! I was wrong. Thank you for the correction, much appreciated.

    • formwiz says:

      Those were background checks, nitwit, hardly the same thing.

  2. Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

    This shit show will be over on Monday.
    It’s obvious little ms. drunken slut puppy does not want to be questioned under oath publically or privately. She has the option. The world doesn’t revolve around her.
    Pack it up. We’re done here.

    • Jethro says:

      Is Mark Judge, Kavanaugh’s ‘stellar’ witness, also a drunken slut? He admits that he is in all his writings – a blackout drunk, ‘gonging’ as many young girls as possible, often accompanied by the mysterious “Bart O’Kavanaugh”.

      Mark Judge – “Certain women should be struck regularly, like gongs.”

      and “Of course, a man must be able to read a woman’s signals, and it’s a good thing that feminism is teaching young men that no means no and yes means yes. But there’s also that ambiguous middle ground, where the woman seems interested and indicates, whether verbally or not, that the man needs to prove himself to her. And if that man is any kind of man, he’ll allow himself to feel the awesome power, the wonderful beauty, of uncontrollable male passion.”


      “Of course there is never any excuse to rape someone. But it’s possible to have two seemingly contradictory thoughts to be both equally true. There’s never any excuse to rape, a crime that I think is almost akin to murder because the rapist kills a part of the human soul,” he wrote. “And yet what women wear and their body language also send signals about their sexuality.”

      And most Con Men see nothing wrong with his attitude. That’s the problem.

      Maybe ‘Bart O’Kavanaugh’ was just trying to “prove himself” to a 15 year old girl that night.

      • formwiz says:

        I hope you can produce the source of the quote because it sounds awfully like Rudyard Kipling.

        And it seems like you’re quoting someone other than Judge, whose guilt or lack of it isn’t at issue.

        While that last quote sounds more like your beloved Moslems.

        You can tell a professional troll by the use of that con. But, if I were you, I wouldn’t lean on that “thought”.

        Shall we take a trip down Mammary Lane with a host of Distinguished Liberals?

        Any Kennedy
        Willie Whitewater
        Christopher Dodd
        Robert Filner
        Gropin’ Joe Biden

        That’s a lot of projection you have there.

        • Jethro says:

          Mark Judge is a writer with quite a paper trail. You can look it all up.

          All true.

          He’s certainly less reliable than Professor Ford.

    • Jethro says:

      It looks more and more that Kavanaugh is a greater drunken slutpuppy than is Professor Ford. At least there’s evidence supporting Kavanaugh’s drunken behavior and sluttiness.

      Do Cons so want to overturn Roe V Wade that they’d confirm a degenerate slut to the court? That’s rhetorical. See Clarence Thomas.

      More Americans now oppose Kavanaugh than support him. Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court will push the court over the edge of illegitimacy. Sort of like tRump has degraded our Presidency.

  3. Jethro says:

    The GOP fears that more unsavory information on Kavanaugh will be exposed, further delaying their rush to seat him.

    Recall that Mitch McConnell advised that Kavanaugh’s confirmation would be difficult, noting Kavanaugh’s lengthy (and secretive) paper trail as an operative in the Bush administration.

    And now this.

    • formwiz says:

      He said that because he knew the Demos would try to Bork him.

      Now what? A looney Lefty comes along with an accusation full of holes and no witnesses. Not an airtight case.

      And she refuses to tell her story Monday because no one else has come forward as a witless.

  4. Jl says:

    Yes J, the R’s “fear more information will come out”, which must be why Feinstein sat on the whole thing for a month instead waiting till the last minute to bring it to light. Nice “logic”.

  5. formwiz says:

    The GOP fears that more unsavory information on Kavanaugh will be exposed, further delaying their rush to seat him.

    You mean like this? A cached copy of Dr I Can’t Remember’s yearbook?

    Replete with stories of boozing and promiscuity? This is why everything was scrubbed.

  6. Mangoldielocks says:

    Corey Booker wrote an article for a newspaper in which he admitted. Pleaded guilty to doing the same thing as a 15 year old. Where is the lefts outrage?

    The METOO only relates to the Right. If your a leftist you can screw over women, children, blacks, Hispanics, gays or name your group, with total and unadulterated impugnity.

    The problem with this stuff is that the more you dig the more you realize that every human being has skeletons in his closet. This accusation is retarded. Probably every girl and boy did something like this at least once in the 70’s and 80’s and its probably still going on today in the age of the METOO movement.

    But of course there is no outrage at Booker or Ellison or Franken because they are leftist who by default LOOOOVVVVVEEEEE women.

    The GOP on the other hand……GUILTY and they should FRY in the Electric chair for BEING BORN.

    • Jethro says:

      Senator Booker’s transgressions will come up when he’s nominated for the Supreme Court.

      Turns out Kavanaugh only hired “young, attractive female” clerks who “looked a certain way”. Boys will be boys!

      At Yale he belonged to the DKE fraternity, which was suspended for five years by Yale after its members were caught on video yelling “no means yes, yes means anal” in front of the Yale Women’s Center. Boys will be boys!

      He also belonged to the Yale “Truth and Courage” Club, aka TNC, an acronym for “Tit and Clit” club, a drinking and carousing club. Boys will be boys!

      In all honesty, it’s not surprising to find that a conservative man considers women inferior to men and deserving of abuse, even if now he pays lip service to decency.

    • Jethro says:

      And we hear often that all men have abuse of women skeletons in their closet. Perhaps all Con Men do, we can’t speak for them. But most young men DID NOT attempt to rape a woman at some time.

      Kavanaugh has an increasingly creepy background emerging. It’s less and less surprising to think he may have attacked a 15 yr old when he was “black-out” drunk at 17.

  7. Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

    The text message from Christine Blasey Ford this summer worried her college best friend, Catherine Piwowarski.

    Over their years of friendship — as roommates, bridesmaids and parents on opposite coasts — Dr. Blasey wanted to know, had she ever confided that she had been sexually assaulted in high school?

    No, Ms. Piwowarski said she texted back, she would have remembered that, and was everything O.K.? Dr. Blasey didn’t want to speak in detail quite yet, her friend recalled her responding. “I don’t know why she was asking that or what it ultimately meant or didn’t mean,” Ms. Piwowarski said in an interview, but she remembers thinking that the question betrayed deep turmoil.

    Even the little drunken slut puppy can’t get her BFF to lie for her!

Pirate's Cove