Sheldon Whitehouse Says FBI Conducted 'Fake' Background Check On Brett Kavanaugh

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  tessylo  •  one month ago  •  29 comments

By:   Lydia O'Connor, HuffPost

Sheldon Whitehouse Says FBI Conducted 'Fake' Background Check On Brett Kavanaugh

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Sheldon Whitehouse Says FBI Conducted 'Fake' Background Check On Brett Kavanaugh


Lydia O'Connor ·Reporter, HuffPost Tue, March 16, 2021, 3:42 PM The FBI is facing new allegations that its 2018 background check on U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh ― conducted after women accused the then-nominee of sexual assault ― was “politically-constrained and perhaps fake.”

The charge comes from Sen.Sheldon Whitehouse(D-R.I.), a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who outlined his concerns Monday ina letterto Attorney General Merrick Garland. There’s reason to believe the FBI did not properly manage its investigation and overlooked several potential witnesses, the senator argued.

“If standard procedures were violated, and the Bureau conducted a fake investigation rather than a sincere, thorough and professional one, that in my view merits congressional oversight to understand how, why, and at whose behest and with whose knowledge or connivance, this was done,” Whitehouse wrote. “The FBI ‘stonewall’ of all questions related to this episode provides little reassurance of its propriety.”

Following Dr.Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when they were in high school, multiple witnesses, including some represented by law firms, reached out to the FBI saying they could corroborate her allegations, Whitehouse says. But those witnesses said they couldn’t get through to the bureau and contacted senators asking for help.

Those lawmakers found that the FBI had “assigned no person to accept or gather evidence,” Whitehouse wrote. “This was unique behavior in my experience, as the Bureau is usually amenable to information and evidence; but in this matter the shutters were closed, the drawbridge drawn up, and there was no point of entry by which members of the public or Congress could provide information to the FBI.”

When the FBI offered a tip line for potential witnesses to call in about Kavanaugh, it provided no transparency about how it managed and vetted the calls that came through, Whitehouse wrote.

This is not the first time Whitehouse, a former U.S. attorney, has raised this issue. In 2019, hewrotethere was “one warning flag after another” during the FBI’s probe.

Progressive groups applauded Whitehouse for pushing on the matter.

“Senator Whitehouse is right to question the FBI’s rushed probe of Brett Kavanaugh when he was a Supreme Court nominee,” the Center for Popular Democracy Action said in a statement. “The purpose of the probe was never to uncover the truth — it was to present evidence that would advance the Trump administration’s agenda.

Whitehouse’s letter outlined four other instances of alleged FBI impropriety unrelated to the Kavanaugh investigation. FBI Director Christopher Wray, who was nominated by former President Donald Trump, could be under fire if Merrick decides to proceed with some action on the matter.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Tessylo    one month ago

Following Dr.      Christine Blasey Ford   ’s testimony that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when they were in high school, multiple witnesses, including some represented by law firms, reached out to the FBI saying they could corroborate her allegations, Whitehouse says. But those witnesses said they couldn’t get through to the bureau and contacted senators asking for help.

Those lawmakers found that the FBI had “assigned no person to accept or gather evidence,” Whitehouse wrote. “This was unique behavior in my experience, as the Bureau is usually amenable to information and evidence; but in this matter the shutters were closed, the drawbridge drawn up, and there was no point of entry by which members of the public or Congress could provide information to the FBI.”

When the FBI offered a tip line for potential witnesses to call in about Kavanaugh, it provided no transparency about how it managed and vetted the calls that came through, Whitehouse wrote.

This is not the first time Whitehouse, a former U.S. attorney, has raised this issue. In 2019, he      wrote       there was “one warning flag after another” during the FBI’s probe.

 
 
 
devangelical
PhD Principal
1.1  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @1    one month ago

the restricted background check by the FBI is a well documented fact.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @1.1    one month ago

The check was barely perfunctory. . . there were many credible witnesses they never even spoke to.

 
 
 
devangelical
PhD Principal
1.1.2  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.1    one month ago

it's a lot more convenient for some to have the memory span of a fruit fly.

 
 
 
dennis smith
Senior Silent
1.2  dennis smith  replied to  Tessylo @1    one month ago

2 years later another left wing conspiracy theory. From the HuffPost no less.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
2  Sean Treacy    one month ago

What witnesses?  Everyone who Ford claimed was at the party, on  some unknown date, at some unknown location said they have no recollection of it happening. They all testified.  Her friend, who she claimed was there, said it never happened and that she was pressured to lie for Ford. Ford herself said she told no one for decades. How could any supposed witnesses "corroborate" her testimony?  If the corroborate the version she told the Senate, then she lied to the Senate. 

Whitehouse embarrassed himself at the hearing and is trying to distract from his own humiliation by shifting the attention to the FBI. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @2    one month ago

Prove it!

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Masters Participates
2.1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Tessylo @2.1    one month ago
Prove it!

He doesn't need to.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
Senior Quiet
2.1.2  gooseisgone  replied to  Tessylo @2.1    one month ago
Prove it!

It has been, it didn't happen. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.3  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  gooseisgone @2.1.2    one month ago

No, nothing was ever 'proven'.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
Senior Quiet
2.1.4  gooseisgone  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.3    one month ago
No, nothing was ever 'proven'.

Please explain how you "prove" something that no one remembers happening. You can say "No" "it happened" all you want but that doesn't make it so. 

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
2.2  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Sean Treacy @2    one month ago

[removed]

 
 
 
devangelical
PhD Principal
2.2.1  devangelical  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @2.2    one month ago

[removed]

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
2.2.2  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  devangelical @2.2.1    one month ago
[removed]
 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @2    one month ago
What witnesses?  Everyone who Ford claimed was at the party, on  some unknown date, at some unknown location said they have no recollection of it happening. They all testified. 

They were a bunch of teenage drunks. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Masters Participates
2.3.1  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @2.3    one month ago
They were a bunch of teenage drunks. 

Including Ford herself

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.3.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Greg Jones @2.3.1    one month ago
They were a bunch of teenage drunks.  Including Ford herself

That is questionable. I believe the testimony was that she was not a regular member of that crowd. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
2.3.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @2.3    one month ago
They were a bunch of teenage drunks.

Yet Ford is the one who changes her story, can't remember when or where  it happened. IT's the was the mid 80s.. No, it was the summer of 1982.... There were 4 guys who assaulted me, No it was just Kavanaugh...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.3.4  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.3.3    one month ago

No, she never changed her story.  

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Masters Participates
2.4  Greg Jones  replied to  Sean Treacy @2    one month ago

There was no credible evidence, so corroboration was impossible

Ford was a lying bitch.

At this point...what difference does it make?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Masters Quiet
2.4.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Greg Jones @2.4    one month ago

It doesn't, but some sore losers just refuse to let go of it!

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Senior Guide
2.4.2  Drakkonis  replied to  Greg Jones @2.4    one month ago
At this point...what difference does it make?

Absolutely none, which seems to be the point some of you are missing. Whitehouse knows he's not making a credible claim. He isn't interested in any witnesses that may have been overlooked. The facts of the case aren't at issue here. 

What is the point is the claim itself. Nothing more. If the Dems can whip up enough interest in Whitehouse's claim, then that's all they need. Quite a lot of the Dem's base don't care about facts. They care about emotionally charged ideas because, well, they love feeling emotionally charged about being the "good guys." They already hate the right so anything at all that sounds like it puts the right down they'll riot over it whether it's true or not. They don't care if it's true. If the claim catches on then not only do they energize their base but they create problems that the Republicans will have to waste at least some time on. 

This is just more standard operating procedure for the Dem's. Nearly every plank in their platform runs on false claims their unthinking base can feel good about supporting. Everyone agrees racism is bad, right? Nothing to understand about that. So you just redefine what constitutes racism and point your base at whoever the desired enemy is. Most of them aren't going to bother to think about it much, if at all, beyond simply screaming "racism!"

So talking about the evidence and trying to convince others that there's nothing to see here gets this all wrong. None of those things matter. It's just another lie they're trying to get their base to rally around. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.4.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Drakkonis @2.4.2    one month ago
Everyone agrees racism is bad, right?

LOL, that's a good one.  Do racists think racism is bad? For the tv cameras maybe. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.4.4  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Drakkonis @2.4.2    one month ago

"It's just another lie they're trying to get their base to rally around."

That's the republican mantra

 
 
 
Thomas
Freshman Guide
3  Thomas    one month ago

That's one sorry looking sonofabitch. Is that Kavanaugh?

I'm sure he's better now. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Thomas @3    one month ago

Just another whiny little bitch on the 'right'

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Thomas @3    one month ago

He has a ruddy complexion like most drunks do

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
4  Sean Treacy    one month ago

Another day, another Democrat engaging in tinfoil hat conspiracy mongering.

He's getting the gullible base all riled up. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Masters Quiet
4.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    one month ago

Yep, we all know the liberal left never ever does things like that. Only them vile and evil righties do things like that!jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online



50 visitors