Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin

(108,036 posts)
Thu Oct 4, 2018, 08:51 PM Oct 2018

Why the FBI's Kavanaugh Investigation Is So Troubling

United States senators are taking turns reading the FBI’s updated background investigation into Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. But the report is unaccountably incomplete. The FBI interviewed only one of Kavanaugh’s three accusers. And investigators failed to interview key witnesses who could have helped corroborate allegations of sexual misconduct by Kavanaugh, or exposed lies he appears to have told the Senate while under oath. Most striking, the FBI did not interview Kavanaugh, himself.

Nor did the FBI interview Kavanaugh’s first accuser, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, nor any of the people Ford confided in about her alleged assault, including her husband and nearly half a dozen friends. Investigators also did not speak to the former FBI agent who conducted the polygraph test that Ford passed. In a scathing letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray, Ford’s lawyers write: “The ‘investigation’ conducted over the past five days is a stain on the process, on the FBI, and on our American ideal of justice.”

The FBI did interview Deborah Ramirez, the Yale classmate who accuses Kavanaugh of drunkenly exposing himself to her. But investigators did not interview Yale contemporaries who could corroborate Ramirez’s recollection, or call into question other under-oath testimony by Kavanaugh.

Kavanaugh has repeatedly testified that his alleged indecent exposure to Ramirez could not have happened because it would have been “the talk of campus.” The New Yorker quotes Yale classmate Kenneth Appold, now a professor at Princeton’s theological seminary, saying it was indeed talked about. Appold told reporters Jane Mayer and Ronan Farrow that he heard about the incident within days, saying he’s “100 percent certain” he was told Kavanaugh exposed himself to Ramirez: “I can corroborate Debbie’s account,” Appold said. “I believe her because it matches the same story I heard thirty-five years ago, although the two of us have never talked.” Appold reportedly offered to speak to the FBI but never heard back.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/fbi-kavanaugh-investigation-findings-733118/

4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why the FBI's Kavanaugh Investigation Is So Troubling (Original Post) Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Oct 2018 OP
Wow this thing was a mess underpants Oct 2018 #1
It sure is a whitewash job under the direction of tRump. Makes one wonder what will happen with RKP5637 Oct 2018 #2
Doesn't the sworn testimony of Ramirez to the FBI constitute "similar fact" evidence, by Fred Sanders Oct 2018 #3
K&R Scurrilous Oct 2018 #4

RKP5637

(67,111 posts)
2. It sure is a whitewash job under the direction of tRump. Makes one wonder what will happen with
Thu Oct 4, 2018, 09:07 PM
Oct 2018

Mueller's report. This country is under siege from so many directions and one can not count on many of our elected representatives to do what is right.

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)
3. Doesn't the sworn testimony of Ramirez to the FBI constitute "similar fact" evidence, by
Thu Oct 4, 2018, 09:18 PM
Oct 2018

definition, corroborative, in criminal matters?

So, some corroboration right there!

Someone else should ask in Washington.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why the FBI's Kavanaugh I...