The FBI head declined to say who at the bureau had made the decision to not interview Kavanaugh, his accuser Christine Blasey Ford because they had ALREADY TESTIFIED UNDER OATH!!!
Posted on 10/10/2018 7:57:49 AM PDT by yesthatjallen
FBI Director Christopher Wray said Wednesday that the bureau's background investigation into Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was limited in scope, following precedent for similar investigations.
Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) asked Wray during a Senate hearing whether the FBI was given full discretion "to investigate whatever your agency thought was appropriate to figure out what happened."
“Our investigation here, our supplemental update to the previous background investigation, was limited in scope and that is consistent with the standard process for such investigations going back quite a long ways,” Wray said.
The FBI head declined to say who at the bureau had made the decision to not interview Kavanaugh, his accuser Christine Blasey Ford or other potential witnesses as part of the investigation.
He also declined to say whether the FBI looked into allegations that Kavanaugh had lied during his testimony before Congress.
“As was standard, the investigation was very specific in scope and limited in scope and that is the usual process and that my folks have assured me that the usual process was followed,” Wray said.
When asked if White House counsel Don McGahn had directly communicated with anyone in the FBI about the background investigation, Wray said he could not “speak to what anybody throughout the organization might have received instructions on.”
He said that, generally, communications about nominations take place between the White House’s security office and the FBI’s security division.
Kavanaugh, who was sworn in as a member of the Supreme Court over the weekend, faced public allegations of sexual assault from three women. He has denied all of the allegations.
Both he and Ford testified before the Senate about her allegation late last month, and the White House directed that a supplemental investigation into Kavanaugh's background be opened amid pressure from Democrats.
The confidential report was made available to senators last week. While Republicans said the report was thorough, some Democrats claimed the FBI did not contact an adequate number of witnesses about the sexual assault allegations.
Key swing votes Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) voted for Kavanaugh after viewing the report.
The FBI treated the investigation as routine instead of the most important investigation in the history of the United States of America.
We have the best FBI, don’t we folks?
Thing is, Democrats weren’t going to be satisfied with it no matter what. Everyone knows it was just a BS delay tactic. What’s also true is that had Democrats been in the majority they would have never agreed to delay one of their nominees by a week or even 10 minutes for an “FBI investigation.”
The dems accept outcomes they like. They do not believe in fairness. Dems are not fit to govern.
As was standard, the investigation was very specific in scope and limited in scope and that is the usual process ...
For once The Hill's headline matches the content.
Many other MSM outlets are trumpeting "White House limited FBI Kavanaugh Investigation".
Now the shoe is on the other foot. The politicized FBI raped Trump, and that is a fact - but the Dems would never admit it, and if the Dems claim now that Trump politicized the FBI to save Kavanaugh, they will look like fools and give Trump the opening to throw it back in their faces.
My prediction: grumble quietly but they won’t go large with this.
The democrats want to be able to direct the FBI politically, whether they are in office, or out of office. They support a political FBI to do their bidding.
What happened to Nancy Peolsi’s request that all investigation documents be redacted and made available to the public?
Boy, that idea went down in flames quick. Wonder why?
Yes! I see where the owner of the Limo Company in New York was an FBI informer. As a retired Police Officer I understand the need for informers but to allow them to do what they please is absolutely wrong and to give them a free pass all the time is wrong. I once had a fellow Officer I thought a lot of testify against me on A DUI case for one of his informers. I ate him alive on the witness stand and never had another officer try and pull that trick on me.
The Democrats are pulling tricks from Alinsky and Unions. All you have to do is identify the leaders and it can be done and during their shenanigans go for the leaders. They have a way to stir the pot and ease out of the way. You will notice the bigger the mouth the more cowardly they are!
Investigations for clearances always look for possible blackmail niches that may be there...7 look-sees turned up nothing and even semi-credible possibility would have generated some more looking...
There is no doubt, in my mind, that President Trump agreed to a supplemental update...nothing more.
Winning!
Good for you. Majority of informants are sleezy.
They are but the Police Force have to use them but to give them an open invite to do anything is just wrong. and most juries are not informed as to how it works.
The FBI head declined to say who at the bureau had made the decision to not interview Kavanaugh, his accuser Christine Blasey Ford because they had ALREADY TESTIFIED UNDER OATH!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.