Saturday, September 29, 2018

Week long FBI investigation will not delay the vote one week...

As it stood, the full Senate was planning on making some procedural moves over the weekend and set up a full confirmation vote either Monday (or more likely Tuesday). Given that whatever sort of FBI report would be due by Friday in order to allow for the Flake demand agreed upon delay of one week before a vote, the Senate would be technically free to continue moving through any procedural moves and plan a vote for next Friday (worst case of Saturday).

Chances are that the FBI will be able to complete the additional Kavanaugh back ground check prior to Friday. There is literally a very specific (and limited) list of witnesses to account for, and interviewing them is not going to take that much time.

There are at most eight potential witnesses in the Christine Ford case. The four that were said to have attended the party, and the four that provided statements to the committee about Ford's discussions about the allegations. All of these people have already provided written statements under penalty of perjury. All of these people are said to have spoken to investigators from the Judicial committee. To change their story now could produce criminal charges, so I would expect every witness will say the exact same thing to the FBI as they did to the committee.

Likewise with the second Ramirez allegation. The FBI has already reached out to her, and there were only a limited amount of people involved in that situation. At this time nobody (including Ramirez) can state that they saw Kavanaugh expose himself. Ramirez herself is said to not know what exactly she pushed away and only remembers (at least today) that she saw Kavanaugh pulling up his pants. It's unlikely that the FBI will interview hearsay witnesses, and even if they did interview them, those statement remain hearsay.

I have yet to hear to what degree they are pursuing the Julie Swetnick allegations. According to sources the committee did not take her charges very seriously. They did speak to her, but apparently she had a fraction of the information that Michael Avennati has claimed. Bottom line, she had no actual personal allegation against Kavanaugh. She did not say he raped her or anyone else.

Lastly, I think it's important to understand that this is a background check, not a criminal investigation. Moreover, Judge Kavanaugh is the only person being checked out. The FBI is not going to do any extensive investigations of anyone else (including Mark Judge).

So a week was probably a generous amount of time for the FBI to update the background check of Judge Kavanaugh. I would not be surprised to see the vote by Friday, or only three or four days later than originally scheduled.

63 comments:

James said...

EMPHASES ADDED

WHITE HOUSE LIMITS Scope of Kavanaugh Investigation
--note, it's the WHITE HOUSE that does that--

“The White House is limiting THE SCOPE of the FBI’s investigation into the sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh,” NBC News reports.

“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.”
_______________

Dictators do not permit certain investigations.


Prediction: Others will come forward to share memories similar to those of Swetnick.

James said...

ChTruth said:
Bottom line, she had no actual personal allegation against Kavanaugh. She did not say he raped her or anyone else.
__________________

Julie Swetnick ... has accused Kavanaugh of engaging in sexual misconduct at parties while he was a student at Georgetown Preparatory School in the 1980s…

James said...

"They can do whatever they have to do. They'll be doing things we have never even thought of,' the president says of investigation into Supreme Court nominee.

And then he says they CAN'T.

James said...

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/28/kavanaugh-fbi-investigation-853788

Read all of this, but realize it was written before it was known that the White House would put limitations on which allegations that could be investigated.

Commonsense said...

Julie Swetnick was not deemed credible by the FBI. Hell she wasn''t deemed credible by CNN and that's saying something.

Commonsense said...

The investigation did expand in one way. Grassley referee the man who made the false claim that Judge and Kavanaugh raped a woman on a boat in RI to the FBI for criminal voilations of presenting a false statement to Congress.

James said...

from article linked at 7:08

Graham cautioned that the reopening of the FBI probe should not be allowed to lead to further delays in Kavanaugh's confirmation or to a spiraling series of allegations others could level against Kavanaugh. "We're not playing this game of opening this up and it goes on forever," the South Carolina Republican warned.

However, Fuentes said he wouldn't be surprised if, despite the scores of Kavanaugh classmates who have emerged to support him, more comes out of the woodwork to accuse him of things now that the FBI is investigating.

"Everyone is assuming that Kavanaugh is beloved by every classmate and every woman he ever mentored. Sometimes overachievers weren't all that popular," the former FBI executive said. "He's very vulnerable in this as well, even to someone lying. Could his nomination withstand any additional accusations, true or untrue? Maybe not."

It seems likely that at least some people who claim to have relevant information about the current accusations against Kavanaugh and were not interviewed by Senate investigators will wind up talking to the FBI.
They include Judge’s ex-girlfriend Elizabeth Rasor, who has suggested she’s willing to discuss some of the boasts he made about sexual antics while attending Georgetown Prep with Kavanaugh.

Lawyers for two other Kavanaugh accusers, Ramirez and Swetnick, have also said they’re ready to speak with the FBI. Swetnick’s lawyer Michael Avenatti has also said she has witnesses who can corroborate her story that Kavanaugh attended parties where girls were slipped alcohol or drugs and subjected to sexual advances or even gang rape.

Despite the talk of cooperation, uncertainty remains whether all the witnesses the FBI may want to talk to will actually wind up being interviewed by agents.

For one thing, there are disagreements about how the results of the interviews should be treated.

Judge's letter Friday saying he would cooperate with any law enforcement investigation indicates that he'll do so if the inquiry is handled "confidentially."

However, Swetnick's attorney rejected that approach.

"We want the results and information made public." Avenatti wrote on Twitter Friday afternoon.

James said...

Results of background investigations are typically held in confidence by the Judiciary Committee, although it may be unrealistic to expect that information to remain secret given the white-hot media spotlight on Kavanaugh.

Zubrensky said it is common for people to ask to speak to the FBI in confidence about a nominee. "I read hundreds, perhaps thousands of background interview summaries during five or six years in the Obama administration," he said. "Most of the time people go on the record, but in a number of instances they said to the FBI: 'I'll talk to you but I don't want to be identified.'"

If witnesses don't want to speak to the FBI or fear they'll be prosecuted for something, the bureau lacks the power to make them talk. "Nobody has to talk to the FBI, even if you're accused of treason," Fuentes noted.

The compromise several senators insisted on Friday punts a highly polarized issue to the FBI at a time when the bureau is still reeling from more than a year's worth of public attacks from Trump related to the Russia probe and intense scrutiny from outsiders and the media of alleged bias in the FBI's ranks.

But Fuentes said he doesn't think the FBI will balk at the task.

"The bureau has an army of people they can apply...About two-thirds of the Washington Field Office does background investigations," he said, while adding that FBI leaders could even order in other agents from elsewhere to handle the Kavanaugh probe.

"It's referred to as a bureau special," the former FBI official aid. "Now, the pressure's on the FBI. Now, they have to do a credible job themselves....They're going to do what they have to do and be diligent and thorough about it, especially now that the whole world is watching."

Commonsense said...

So James if you were expecting a lot of false accusations coming out of the woodwork be aware that Grassley's not fucking around. He'll burn your ass and send you to jail.

Commonsense said...

Keeping Di-Fi's staff out of the loop should be enough to stop the leaks.

James said...

I didn't write that. I said I'm expecting that credible accusations may start coming, perhaps pouring in.

James said...

Here's a portion from the article:

It seems likely that at least some people who claim to have relevant information about the current accusations against Kavanaugh and were not interviewed by Senate investigators will wind up talking to the FBI.
They include Judge’s ex-girlfriend Elizabeth Rasor, who has suggested she’s willing to discuss some of the boasts he made about sexual antics while attending Georgetown Prep with Kavanaugh.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Kavanaugh’s good friends from his days at Yale.

Elizabeth Swisher, a physician who lives in Seattle, told the New York Times, “I drank a lot. Brett drank more.” In additional comments on The Last Word With Lawrence O’Donnell, Swisher said:

I was appalled. He was clearly lying. And it was incredibly disturbing to see somebody perjuring them self who’s in line to be a Supreme Court justice…That’s what was surprising to me. Is that, I drank too much in college. I think a lot of kids drink too much in college. ‘But if you’re able to get your work done and you move on with your life and you don’t drink as much–but we all drank a fair amount and we made some stupid choices.’ That would have been totally fine. If he had said that, I wouldn’t be here today.

Lynne Brooks, who also says she drank a lot with Kavanaugh during the Yale days concurred with Swisher’s estimation. She said, “I agree. The reason that I decided to speak out was when he gave the Fox News interview and, as I said in the Washington Post, tried to paint himself as a choir boy where all he did was study and play sports and every once in awhile he would have a beer–and that’s simply not consistent with the Brett Kavanaugh I knew in college.”

Myballs said...

Classmates not friends. They're both friends of Ramirez. In fact, Swisher and Ramirez were roommates in college for three years.

Commonsense said...

The FBI is going to ask Di-Fi staffers if they were the one who leaked Ford's letter.

commie said...

The FBI is going to ask Di-Fi staffers if they were the one who leaked Ford's letter.

As they should.....idiot....But could it be that is outside of the trump narrow investigation directions???? I surely don't know....

Commonsense said...

This would actually be a separate criminal investigation.

commie said...


Anonymous Myballs said...
Classmates not friends.

A distinction that makes you feel better??? I knew a lot of classmates that were ugly drunks......

commie said...


This would actually be a separate criminal investigation.

And you base that statement on your extensive expertise in law???? Or your GED???? Just asking..

Commonsense said...

Dennis you're an idiot who doesn't have the smarts God gave a gnat.

commie said...

o doesn't have the smarts God gave a gnat.

So says our GED cultist who thinks evolution is not consistent with God's plan......asshole

Anonymous said...

Flake and Dems have their review.

After the new 7th lookin, how many Dems vote for after getting everything they asked?

25,20,15 ....... ?

Anonymous said...

Jane is waiting, yet to have one the poundmefist movement got a win having a no place, no time, some years not for sure ALT Leftist talk, you know "be heard" show up. No evidence, no witnesses.

"I didn't write that. I said I'm expecting that credible accusations may start coming, perhaps pouring in."

Their can always be a first.


Anonymous said...

"If you continue to accuse me of sexual harassment or sexual abuse can put you in legal jeopardy. False public accusations are liable in civil court. I know who you are and where you live. Be careful." Alky the Rapist

Lol, go for it asshole.
You threatened to sue me before.
So has boy fucked Jane.
Both of you are all hat No Balls.

Anonymous said...

Has Ballsy Ford agreed to give a sworn interview to Special Agents of the FBI yet? On tape and video with verbatim transcripts ? The Ben and is for her to be heard.

Commonsense said...

Lynching men on false accusations of rape is a proud Democrat tradition.

Anonymous said...

"USA Today deleted a tweet promoting an article suggesting that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh should “stay off basketball courts when kids are around” and not coach girls’ basketball because he was accused of sexual assault.

The newspaper retracted the portion of the article containing that statement after receiving heavy backlash on social media."

Nope, be proud be heard.

Senator Claire McCarthist had announce she is a "NO" vote.

"Republican challenger Josh Hawley has taken a two point lead over Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) in the Missouri Senate race just days after she announced she will be voting against the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

Hawley leads McCaskill by a margin of 48 percent to 46 percent in the poll conducted by Missouri Scout over two days, from Wednesday, September 26 to Thursday, September 27."



commie said...


Has Ballsy Ford agreed to give a sworn interview to Special Agents of the FBI yet?

She's the one who asked for the investigation douche nozzle....Maybe you didn't know, but any interview by the FBI is on record and subject to perjury charges if you lie...Just ask Martha Stewart.....Dayum, your asshole grows bigger every day!!!!!

cowardly king obama said...

"lo iq commie said...
The FBI is going to ask Di-Fi staffers if they were the one who leaked Ford's letter.

As they should.....idiot....But could it be that is outside of the trump narrow investigation directions???? I surely don't know.... "


"I surely don't know.... "


Looks like lo iq commie finally went to a self awareness class. But to help him President Trump didn't originate the request he just approved it as was agreed to by the Judicial panel.

It's a beautiful morning.

Commonsense said...

Has Ballsy Ford agreed to give a sworn interview to Special Agents of the FBI yet?

As the old saying goes, "be careful what you ask for".

People are starting to poke holes in Ford's story. Especially the inconsistencies between her therapist notes, her polygraph test, and her sworn testimonny. The polygraph and therapist notes indicates the incident she relayed to then happen much later than 1982 while she was in her "late teens".

commie said...

But to help him President Trump didn't originate the request he just approved it as was agreed to by the Judicial panel.

You are a bigger asshole than cramps....He says something idiotic and you swear to it like the little slurper you are...There is no evidence that DiFi staff member is being questioned or investigated.....And I asked if that was out of the purview of the investigation....Seems to me you cannot find your ass with your own hands in the dark and can't answer either question....Such great stupidity in one person is astounding...Go fuck kd's goat....probably a good fit...LOLOLOL!!

commie said...

People are starting to poke holes in Ford's story

And people are questioning your lack of intellect.....I'm sure you have a link, cramps.....but I won't hold my breath waiting for you to admit you made it up.....asshole

Commonsense said...

So Dennis does what he usually does when he doesn't have real argument.

commie said...

People are starting to poke holes in Ford's story

Like I predicted....you ain't got shit and resort to making up your own set of unsubstantiated facts....whatta douche and you lost again.....thanx for playing...

cowardly king obama said...

Looks like I triggered lo iq commie !!!

Must have hit a nerve with the self awareness jab. Being lo iq he obviously has none.

Sorry lo iq commie. Just slow down, relax, take deep breathes and take some of that truckload of medication you must be prescribed to take. And try having a life.

ROFLMFAO !!!

Anonymous said...


Anonymous Myballs said...
Classmates not friends. They're both friends of Ramirez. In fact, Swisher and Ramirez were roommates in college for three years.



we always knew the alky was a liar. now we know he's a rapist too.

heh.

Anonymous said...




By smearing the ultimate Boy Scout, the Democrats signal that they are determined to go lower than anyone has ever gone in American history. They intend to deter normal people from serving in Republican administrations, or accepting appointments from Republican presidents, or, ultimately, from identifying themselves with the Republican party. Given that strategy, the fact that they are smearing a man of obviously sterling character on absurdly flimsy grounds is not a bug, it is a feature. The fact that the Democrats’ smears are so patently false is ultimately their main point.

The Democrats are telling us: Republicans, beware–if this can happen to Brett Kavanaugh, it can happen to anyone. You’d better go quietly and cede power to us.


https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/09/why-the-brett-kavanaugh-smear.php

commie said...

Power line blog....opiniuons from asswipes and republican's who can't think for themselves....The only smear is being made by GRASSLEY and company who choose men over women every day.....assholes like you are a dime a dozen and rampant idiots...

commie said...


ROFLMFAO !!!

At you again asswipe.....the only thing you beat is your own mean....just like donnie.....jag off...Have you ever posted a cogent thought.....BWAAAAAAA!!!!!!!

cowardly king obama said...


Phil Kerpen Retweeted Margot Cleveland

Even from the very cursory description of the therapist notes in the first WaPo story it is clear they are exculpatory, and that's why neither the Senate nor the FBI will ever see them.

Also why Ford said she didn't share them with WaPo, to preserve privilege.


cowardly king obama said...

I see lo iq commie still hasn't taken his meds.

Of course that wouldn't help with his lo iq

ROFLMFAO !!!

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Kavanaugh said, “That’s impossible because I didn’t have sex for many, many, many years. All I did was drink a lot and not think about having sex at all. I was the proudest, drunkest virgin you have ever seen and everyone can relate to that.”

Anonymous said...



stealing from SNL, alky rapist?

you can't get any lamer or un-funnier than SNL, alky rapist.

Commonsense said...

Julie Swetnick, a Brett Kavanaugh accuser, faced misconduct allegations at Portland company

This story establishes two things.

1. Swetnick frequently lies on "sworn" statements.

2. She's a serial sexual harasser herself.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Keep it up Jimmy. Accusations against me in public that are felonies I could file a lawsuit. I know we you are and where you live

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

SNL was hilarious.

I watched the first episode.

Anonymous said...

Kanye West was great on SNL this week, except they cut him off early.

Commonsense said...

Keep it up Jimmy. Accusations against me in public that are felonies I could file a lawsuit

Well Roger in order to win you have to prove you're innocent.

See how your new rules work?

Commonsense said...

More doubt on Ford's timeline:

Ford changed the date of the assault from mid-80s when she was at Chapel Hill to early 80s when Kavanaugh was in high school and Judge worked at Safeway. I think she slipped when she said the assault affected her grades at UNC. More likely the alleged assault happened then.

Kavanaugh went to Yale not Chapel Hill.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

No. I have to prove he accused me of a felony. It's not a criminal case.

commie said...

Ford changed the date of the assault from mid-80s when she was at Chapel Hill to early 80s when

What a crock of horseshit cramps.....what is the source of your quote.....LSD????? You believe this crap and think GW is a hoax and evolution is fake science.....dayum you are stupid!!! BTW kayne west is another asswipe....look at what he is married to if you had doubts....!!!

C.H. Truth said...

So Roger,

Are you suggesting that accusing someone of a felony without evidence...

Is wrong?

caliphate4vr said...

CS Ford went to UNC, Pepperdine and USC. Kavanaugh attended Yale

Commonsense said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Commonsense said...

Yes, that's the thing. Her original story put het in the late 80's at UNC. Her revised story puts her back in the early 80's and Maryland.

commie said...

riginal story put het in the late 80's at UNC. Her revised story puts her back in the early 80's and Maryland.

Lots of opinion....no backup.....keep shoveling...Brett's going to be found out to be a drunk just like his buddy Judge.....

cowardly king obama said...

Lots of opinion....no backup.....keep shoveling...Brett's going to be found out to be a drunk just like his buddy Judge.....

Hey lo iq why do you post what you are doing before making your "statement"?

asking for a friend.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

The F.B.I. is back in the middle of it. When we were handed the Hillary Clinton email investigation in 2015, the bureau’s deputy director said to me, “You know you are totally screwed, right?” He meant that, in a viciously polarized political environment, one side was sure to be furious with the outcome. Sure enough, I saw a tweet declaring me “a political hack,” although the author added, tongue in cheek: “I just can’t figure out which side.”

And those were the good old days. President Trump’s decision to order a one-week investigation into sexual assault allegations against Brett Kavanaugh, his Supreme Court nominee, comes in a time of almost indescribable pain and anger, lies and attacks.

We live in a world where the president routinely attacks the F.B.I. because he fears its work. He calls for his enemies to be prosecuted and his friends freed. We also live in a world where a sitting federal judge channels the president by shouting attacks at the Senate committee considering his nomination and demanding to know if a respected senator has ever passed out from drinking. We live in a world where the president is an accused serial abuser of women, who was caught on tape bragging about his ability to assault women and now likens the accusations against his nominee to the many “false” accusations against him.

Most disturbingly, we live in a world where millions of Republicans and their representatives think nearly everything in the previous paragraph is O.K.

In that world, the F.B.I. is now being asked to investigate, on a seven-day clock, sexual assaults that the president says never happened, that some senators have decried as a sham cooked up to derail a Supreme Court nominee, and that other senators believe beyond all doubt were committed by the nominee.

If truth were the only goal, there would be no clock, and the investigation wouldn’t have been sought after the Senate Judiciary Committee already endorsed the nominee. Instead, it seems that the Republican goal is to be able to say there was an investigation and it didn’t change their view, while the Democrats hope for incriminating evidence to derail the nominee.

Although the process is deeply flawed, and apparently designed to thwart the fact-gathering process, the F.B.I. is up for this. It’s not as hard as Republicans hope it will be.

F.B.I. agents are experts at interviewing people and quickly dispatching leads to their colleagues around the world to follow with additional interviews. Unless limited in some way by the Trump administration, they can speak to scores of people in a few days, if necessary.

They will confront people with testimony and other accounts, testing them and pushing them in a professional way. Agents have much better nonsense detectors than partisans, because they aren’t starting with a conclusion.

Yes, the alleged incident occurred 36 years ago. But F.B.I. agents know time has very little to do with memory. They know every married person remembers the weather on their wedding day, no matter how long ago. Significance drives memory. They also know that little lies point to bigger lies. They know that obvious lies by the nominee about the meaning of words in a yearbook are a flashing signal to dig deeper.

James Comey

James Comey: The F.B.I. Can Do This https://nyti.ms/2NQ6djK

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

You are accusing me of a felony.

If I actually you I would not have to prove my innocence. You're very words are all the evidence I would need.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Scott, you don't want to know the truth. If you were really interested in getting to the truth, you would not be opposed to a complete investigation, including every single person, including those who seem to be doubtful. Because if they lie to the FBI they can be charged with a crime.

I know that this is highly polarized. But remember that this is a lifetime to the highest court in the United States. The FBI will not come to a conclusion. But they will provide the information for the job interview.

Commonsense said...

The truth is that the reputation of a fine and honorable man was sullied by the sleaziest polical party in US history.

And as with the lynchings of the 1920's the Democrats forever tar themselves in infamy.

Anonymous said...

Blogger Commonsense said...
Keep it up Jimmy. Accusations against me in public that are felonies I could file a lawsuit

Well Roger in order to win you have to prove you're innocent.

See how your new rules work?



precisely. you would think that he would know this because HIS SIDE established these new rules.

old and busted - due process and presumption of innocence.

new hotness - guilty until proven innocent.

oh, and alky rapist (or do you prefer rapist alky? please let me know.)? i neglected to mention that for the purposes of this particular topic, i identify as a woman. i got me a little gender fluidity going on here. not so much that i'll start using the ladies room mind you, but just enough for the benefit that - women are always to be believed. ALWAYS.

heh.








Anonymous said...



And as with the lynchings of the 1920's the Democrats forever tar themselves in infamy.


when democrats lynched emmett till they were just getting warmed up.