The FBI cannot ask the supermarket that employed Judge for records.

[RandySF]

Link to tweet

Philip Gourevitch
‏
Verified account

@PGourevitch
Follow Follow @PGourevitch
More
"the FBI cannot ask the supermarket that employed Judge for records verifying when he was employed there, one of the sources was told."
2:19 PM - 29 Sep 2018

[john657]

1. Oh, they can ask,

but the supermarket can tell them no.

[RandySF]

2. No, the White House out it off limits.

[DarthDem]

5. That's Not Accurate

That's not how FBI investigations work.

[getagrip_already]

9. Stop. This isn't an FBI investigation. It's a series of phone interviews.

That is ALL it is. There is no authorization to investigate. They are only being told to speak with specific witnesses and to keep their questions to a specific set of topics.

All they will do is write down what is said.

The fbi is likely already finished.

[dawg day]

33. That should be made public, then--

That they have not investigated.

You know, a young lady who grew up down the street from me, and moved away after college, applied for an administrative job at a company that does collections on late student-loan payments. That is, not really impacting national security-- and not even a government agency.

The FBI sent me and every neighbor on the street questionnaires about her. Did we know her, how long had she lived there, did she get in to any trouble, what did we know about her family. It felt really intrusive, but was needed for her job. The people who lived next door got followup phone calls.
The young lady told me that an agent had actually visited her previous employer to ask questions.

And that was for a minor job at a non-defense contractor.

It's really hard to take in that a SCOTUS candidate would receive less vetting than that.

[PubliusEnigma]

35. You don't know what it is. But you act so certain.

[getagrip_already]

37. you are correct of course...

I don't know what the current status is. But during the confirmation hearings they very clearly identified the process he went through as a background check requested by the white house for a judicial nominee.

That is not an criminal investigation. It isn't handled by the same offices that do criminal investigations. Witnesses are contacted for voluntary statements only. They can't compel testimony.

The fbi does thousands of background checks a year. I've been through them. They aren't looking for crimes or evidence of crimes. They are trying to assess the character of the subject and verify the information the subject provided.

The two are entirely different processes.

So while the new checks may be a more formal criminal investigation, my "bet" is that they have used the standard background check process with a very limited scope to gather additional inputs.

[getagrip_already]

55. Now, we KNOW!

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/white-house-limits-scope-fbi-s-investigation-allegations-against-brett-n915061

Separately, a White House official made clear that the White House is the client in this process. This is not an FBI criminal investigation — it is a background investigation in which the FBI is acting on behalf of the White House. Procedurally, the White House does not allow the FBI to investigate as it sees fit, the official acknowledged; the White House sets the parameters.

Is that clear enough? This is just a limited extension of his background check. It is not a criminal investigation and the fbi's hands are tied its back.

[stonecutter357]

52. lol fail !

[stonecutter357]

54. #facknews !

[john657]

6. Ahhh, ok, didn't know that.

Thanks for the info.

[Ccarmona]

3. The Repugs and the WH Are Either Oblvious or Just Don't Care

If they limit the scope of the investigation to the point that it appears to be nothing but a cursory attempt, Women will not be silent.

[smirkymonkey]

4. Why not?

They are the FBI.

[john657]

8. Well, for one, this isn't a criminal investigation, the supermarket is under no

obligation to turn over the records.

And I guess the WH told them they can't ask for them.

[lamp_shade]

7. What's to stop Safeway from providing the info WITHOUT being asked by the FBI?

[GreenPartyVoter]

10. Fingers crossed!

[getagrip_already]

11. nothing... but who is going to do it?

Any safeway employee that does it without management approval will be immediately fired.

Getting subpoena'd is completely different than being a whistleblower.

Even if they do provide it, the fbi may not report it back to congress since they weren't asked to determine it.

[dawg day]

34. Judge spells it out pretty clearly in his memoir.

But of course that has to be in evidence.

[SMC22307]

36. Yep, that's the first thing that popped into my head.

There's always a workaround.

[sarisataka]

50. Nothing, except

Risking a lawsuit for breach of confidentiality

[Solly Mack]

12. Some organization call the Social Security Office. I dunno.

That keeps up with employment history.

[Raven123]

13. Interesting strategy

This is not an undercover investigation. If those with relevant information are excluded, but identify themselves publicly and indicate they were not interviewed, the investigation will lack credibility. It is silly because the info will get out. I wonder if the report will have to note the limitations in its summary.

We will be back where we started, except that those who on the fence but leaning "no" will have cover, while those leaning "yes" may face a more difficult decision

[getagrip_already]

15. now ask them if they care..... winning is all they care about. n/t

[pintobean]

25. This

in a sub-thread about wanting an employer to leak a citizen's private information to the public.

[Raven123]

30. What private information?

[pintobean]

39. If the information wasn't private

there would be no need for this thread.

[Raven123]

44. Point taken. Never thought of employment records as private

I'd have to ponder that. It's not like he was working as a CIA operative. If it is true that the FBI cannot access that info, you never know who might come out of the woodwork and corroborate his employment.

[Raven123]

26. True. Might win the battle, but the repercussions ...

[getagrip_already]

14. Sadly, the FBI is probably already finished.....

A final vote could come as soon as tomorrow afternoon. Monday at the latest.

You know they won't want a long gap between the fbi reports and voting. The only thing that would stop it is if 2 gop senators grow a spine. There is no risk of that. They will have 50 votes plus pence.

Rapie-mcrape-face will be on the court the next day.

[brush]

16. What's the rush? They'll take longer than that just to make it look good.

[getagrip_already]

18. the rush is that they don't want to risk any more disclosures....

They don't care how it looks. They just want to win.

[Anon-C]

38. This.

[brush]

40. The ABA and ACLU have come out against him. Avenatti's client is being interviewed...

on TV tomorrow. Catholic orgs have come out against him. The FBI is also interviewing Ramirez, I don't see him making it.

The repugs won't be happy but they might have to bite the bullet on his nominations

[Hugin]

17. and Rosenstein will be out by Tuesday afternoon...

Followed by Mueller.

Then the Pardons will start flowing out of Tangerine Idi Amin's office like a swamp drain.

[getagrip_already]

20. maybe, but probably after the midterms...

is when he will try that. Mconnel would personally impeach him if he f's up the election any more than he already has.

[CatWoman]

19. also

Link to tweet

[CatWoman]

21. and

Link to tweet

[WillowTree]

22. Why don't they just ask Judge?

I actually don't understand what documenting that he worked there proves other than he worked there (assuming that he did).

Feds: "Did you work at the Safeway that summer?"

Judge: "Yes"

Feds: "Did you encounter Dr. Blasey-Ford there one day while you were working?"

Judge: "I don't think so. I mean, it was a long time ago so I guess I might have. There's no incident that I remember, though"

Unless he admits to remembering the encounter that she describes, where would it go from there?

[torius]

32. It's just a piece of circumstantial evidence

That supports her claim, though of course it is nothing conclusive in itself. If it turned out he had never worked there, it would be damaging to her.

[Grasswire2]

23. If the FBI interviewed you, would you be instructed to keep the conversation to yourself?

And would that be under penalty of some kind?

[still_one]

24. The FBI needs to verify information from judge, and if they are blocked from doing that, it goes in

the report that they are being blocked from getting needed information

[stonecutter357]

27. lock him up !

[Anon-C]

28. CNN, you allowed SE Cupp to create a false impression that this

Was an expansive even unlimited scope on the air.

Do the right thing and tell the truth, this is a sham.

[torius]

29. Would a background check turn that up?

I think background checks such as credit checks or maybe a level up from that, turn up employment records? doubt they would have to ask.

[getagrip_already]

42. no, unless it was recent.....

The background check process only goes back a set number of years depending on the job or clearance you are being considered for.

It always stops at age 18. Anything before that isn't looked at beyond criminal record checks and school history.

For example, a publiuc trust clearance will only look at your past 5 years of employment. But ts/sci will look back 20. If you are in the service and only 22, they will stop at age 18 for a lot of checks. But they will look at criminal and driving records if they are in the system.

As a rule, the younger you are, the quicker the process goes.

Besides, Judge wasn't the one being checked. He was merely a friend of the subject. If rapie mcrape face didn't list him in his disclosure forms, they wouldn't even speak with him.

[LenaBaby61]

31. Kavanaugh will more than likely be placed ....

Last edited Sat Sep 29, 2018, 08:47 PM - Edit history (1)

On the High Court thanks to an FBI investigation that's IF true is SO limited in scope that it's not going to yield what it could have if it was unlimited in scope. And, thanks to the fact that Yertle will have the votes he needs.

But, whats to stop DEMOCRATS from re-opening a much wider scale of investigations into Kavanaugh's dealings IF they take control of the house this Fall? IF the scope of what the FBI can investigate IS severely curtailed/rigged in favor of Kavanaugh by Fatso-in-chief, then Dems owe it to US/themselves to make sure Kavanaugh is removed from the High Court because the lying, belligerent, woman-hating, deep state-loving, partisan, drunken, sexually assaulting, privileged, Federalist, white male scum is WHOLLY unfit to be on the High Court and giving tReasonous tRump a get out of jail free card & making decisions for other people's lives who he hates/disagrees with politically et al.

[getagrip_already]

43. nothing could stop congressional hearings.....

As we found with clinton.

But the house and senate can't do much more than refer anything they find to the fbi for consideration. The only recourse once he is on the bench would be impeachment. That would require a 2/3 vote in the senate. We wouldn't have the votes.

A question for constitutional scholars. Could a scotus justice be impeached by congress? They aren't normal judges. The scotius is a constitutional office. Are they covered by the impeachment clause?

Can the court itself impeach one of it's members?

[LenaBaby61]

45. "The only recourse once he is on the bench would be impeachment.

That would require a 2/3 vote in the senate. We wouldn't have the votes."

Welp, it looks like we're stuck with the prick unless he resigns, and that's not gonna happen.


Thanks so much for setting the record straight for me

[getagrip_already]

46. well, there is one more option....

jail. If he somehow got criminally charged and convicted, there wouldn't be much ground for a senator to vote not to remove him from the bench.

It would be interesting if he was convicted and jailed,, but not impeached. He would remain on the court, but wouldn't be available to hear cases or vote until he was released. Knowing the gop, they might find that a better choice than giving the seat to a dem potus.

[sarisataka]

49. Yes, SCOTUS justice can impeached by Congress

And that is the only body that can impeach them.

[irisblue]

53. Welcome to DU. I agree with you about Coney Barrett.

[Vinca]

41. They can get the records filed by the supermarket to the IRS.

A kid might not make enough money to file taxes, but a report of his income has to be made anyway.

[getagrip_already]

47. don't getting irs records require a subpoena?

Or at least an administrative request through multiple layers of bureaucracy?

In any case, it wouldn't be available to agents doing a background check unless it was related to the subject. They would have zero grounds to investigate a witness.

[LakeSuperiorView]

56. Are there even records to check? Data must be retained for 7 years, but beyond that...

The corporations that I have worked for want everything that is one day older than seven years gone, unless there is a pending legal case. If Safeway is following standard data practices, that info is long gone.