Among those the bureau did not interview were Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Blasey. The White House said that was not necessary because they testified under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee for hours last week.
The F.B.I. apparently did not explore allegations by a third accuser, Julie Swetnick, who is represented by Michael Avenatti, a lawyer who also works for Stephanie Clifford, the former pornographic film star known as Stormy Daniels who was paid hush money to keep her from discussing what she said was an extramarital affair with Mr. Trump before the 2016 presidential election. Senate Democrats have not focused as much on Ms. Swetnick’s assertions as on those of Dr. Blasey and Ms. Ramirez.
The official briefed on the review said the bureau focused on the incidents described by Dr. Blasey and Ms. Ramirez but did not go out of its way to pursue broader questions about Judge Kavanaugh’s drinking during high school and college. Judge Kavanaugh told the committee last week that while he sometimes drank too much beer, he never blacked out. Former classmates have since come forward to say he misled the committee about the extent of his drinking.
The official said the bureau contacted one person who said he had heard about the incident involving Ms. Ramirez at Yale University at the time, but that person did not witness it or talk with Ms. Ramirez. He identified the person he said had told him about the episode, but that person told the F.B.I. that he did not recall it, the official said.
Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, warned before the interviews were received that they might be worthless because the investigation did not include interviews with Judge Kavanaugh, Dr. Blasey, or witnesses identified as corroborators by Ms. Ramirez. Those restrictions, she wrote, raise “serious concerns that this is not a credible investigation and begs the question: What other restrictions has the White House placed on the F.B.I.?”
Senators from both parties said they would like to see the F.B.I.’s work eventually made public in some form, but a previous agreement governing background investigations like the one into Judge Kavanaugh could make that legally difficult.
A four-page memorandum between the Judiciary Committee and the White House precludes disclosure of contents of a background file by the committee and lays out circumstances under which designated staff members or senators who disclose its contents without authorization can be punished.
White House lawyers have concluded that a similar memorandum dealing with Privacy Act restrictions bars them from making the contents public either, or from commenting on them with any specificity.
An F.B.I. background investigation differs considerably from more familiar criminal investigations and is based principally on gathering information to inform decisions by senators and the White House. In a criminal investigation, agents make crucial investigative decisions about scope and strategy, and they are able to use search warrants and subpoenas to compel evidence. Agents working on a background investigation have no such tools, and they get explicit marching orders through the White House Counsel’s Office.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/03/us/p ... e=HomepageHere’s a list of the people who we know have not been interviewed:
- A suitemate of Kavanaugh’s has now told the New Yorker he remembers hearing at the time about the incident Deborah Ramirez has recounted. Ramirez, who has been interviewed, had claimed that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her during a dorm party at Yale. The suitemate, Kenneth G. Appold, now says he is “one-hundred-per-cent certain” that he was told the culprit was Kavanaugh. He does say he never discussed this with Ramirez, but he claims an eyewitness described the episode to him at the time. Appold has tried to share this story with the FBI, but there’s no indication the FBI is willing to hear from him.
- A classmate of Kavanaugh’s at Georgetown Prep now strongly challenges one of Kavanaugh’s assertions under oath. The person told the New Yorker that he heard Kavanaugh talk repeatedly about Renate Dolphin as someone “that everyone passed around for sex” (the witness’ words), and even heard Kavanaugh singing a rhyme that included the words “you wanna get laid, you can make it with REE-NATE.” Kavanaugh (and many others) described themselves in their yearbook as a “Renate Alumnius,” but Kavanaugh has denied under oath that this was a sexual reference, claiming, ludicrously, that it was intended to show “affection.”
This classmate is not named by the New Yorker. But he put his name on a statement to the FBI and Judiciary Committee that makes this claim, and he is prepared to talk to the FBI. There is no indication this happened.
- James Roche, one of Kavanaugh’s roommates at Yale, has written a piece for Slate that claims Kavanaugh lied under oath about his use of slang and his drinking. Roche claims that Kavanaugh “regularly” blacked out. Roche has offered to talk to the FBI, but there’s no indication this happened.
Roche also pointedly added of Kavanaugh: “He said that ‘boofing’ was farting and the ‘Devil’s Triangle’ was a drinking game. ‘Boofing’ and ‘Devil’s Triangle’ are sexual references. I know this because I heard Brett and his friends using these terms on multiple occasions.” Roche concluded that Kavanaugh “has demonstrated a willingness to be untruthful under oath about easily verified information.”
- NBC News reports that the FBI has not contacted dozens of people who could potentially corroborate the allegations against Kavanaugh or testify to his behavior at the time. This includes many people who knew either Ford or Ramirez at the time, and people who actually approached the FBI offering information.
- The Post reports that Ramirez’s lawyers provided the FBI with a list of more than 20 people who might have relevant information, but “as of Wednesday, Ramirez’s team had no indication that the bureau had interviewed any of them.”
- Blasey Ford’s legal team today put out a list of additional people who have not been contacted by the FBI, some of whom were prepared to corroborate that she had in the past discussed being the victim of a sexual assault by a federal judge.
- Neither Ford nor Kavanaugh have been interviewed by the FBI. As the Brookings Institution’s Susan Hennessey points out: “It is inconceivable they could close a real investigation without re-interviewing Kavanaugh.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pl ... 0609298642The Washington Post has been able to confirm interviews with six witnesses, five of whom have a connection to Ford or her allegations.
In an interview on CNN on Thursday, White House spokesman Raj Shah said the FBI had contacted 10 people and interviewed nine of them.
The investigation was always unlikely to prove whether Kavanaugh is guilty of sexual misconduct decades ago. But the inquiry’s limited scope — which was dictated by the White House, along with a Friday deadline — is likely to exacerbate the partisan tension surrounding Kavanaugh’s nomination.
Even before the investigation ended, several people who said they had information that could be useful said they ended up mired in bureaucracy when they tried to get in touch with the FBI. Democrats also cried foul aboutwhat they considered inappropriate parameters that the White House seemed to be imposing on the bureau.
The White House and the FBI have treated each other warily throughout the process, people familiar with the matter said. Both sides were mindful that their written communications might one day be subject to subpoena, particularly if Democrats win back control of the House in next month’s midterm election, the people said.
President Trump has insisted publicly that he was not curtailing the inquiry. But privately, the White House restricted the FBI from delving deeply into Kavanaugh’s drinking in high school and college and exploring whether he lied to Congress about his alcohol use, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter.
Some of those involved in the case complained that the bureau did not follow leads that were offered to it.
...
It is not abnormal in background checks for the White House to tell the bureau what to do. Background checks, unlike criminal investigations, are done for the benefit of the White House so that officials might have more information about people they want to nominate for critical government jobs.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... 95bcb8a616So Republicans being able to limit the scope of the FBI's investigation is not just a conspiracy theory, it's what they can legally do.
The fix is in.
