Matt Miller in October 2018: Time for Dems to get tough with the FBI.

[Grasswire2]

He was so right.

"

As the FBI prepares to conclude its review of the sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, it seems clear that its investigation has been cursory at best. According to NBC News, more than 40 potential sources have yet to be contacted by the FBI, including Kavanaugh’s original accuser, Christine Blasey Ford. A number of people with information relevant to the investigation have complained that even after calling the bureau’s field offices or national tip line in good faith, the bureau has not followed up with them.

Democrats have responded by accusing the White House of inappropriately restricting the bureau’s probe—a claim based on the fact the White House has authority to set the scope of follow-up background investigations—and a charge that the White House denies. But just as during the 2016 Clinton email investigation and the ongoing Russia probe, Democrats have largely failed to criticize the FBI for its role in the investigation, and have at times gone out of their way to praise its professionalism.

This strategy is both a political and substantive mistake, one that stems from the asymmetric way America’s two political parties deal with the administration of justice. Over the past several years, Republicans have repeatedly assaulted the Justice Department with hyper-politicized demands, while Democrats—for reasons that fall somewhere between tactics and timidity—have ceded the playing field to the loudest and most irresponsible actors on the right. The inevitable result has been a Justice Department that constantly scurries to respond to Republican criticism, making concessions that would have once been unimaginable, in a fruitless attempt to appease people who have no respect for the department’s obligation to enforce the law fairly."



[link:https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/10/03/kavanaugh-allegations-fbi-investigation-politicize-220843|

[Skittles]

1. NO SHIT

and while they're at it, find out why it was acceptable to talk crap about Hillary's emails when they KNEW Russia was interfering to help Trump "win"

[emmaverybo]

2. Why are not nominees to the Supreme Court vetted as others, prospective FBI, police

officers, Federal Marshalls, even youth probation folks, are? Many undergo psychological testing,
polygraphing, drug testing, and extensive background checks into financial history, relationships, social life...

Kavanaugh et al are given cursory background checks which rely primarily on self-reporting, character references, and checking out the CV. These background “investigations” are not carried out by agents with a real investigatory background or interrogating skills. Basically, candidates are taken at their and their pals’ word.

As long as Kavanaugh’s second background check was not a criminal investigation, FBI was not going to get serious.

We can certainly hold FBI in charge of the re-opened Kavanaugh background check to account, but that does little for next time. Not only should the vetting of a potential Supreme Court Justice be far more extensive, but as well, sexual abuse complaints that can not be pursued as criminal should never end up in a he said, she said non-judicial proceeding, doomed to end up placing the burden on the alleged victim while likely subjecting her to public humiliation. In addition, the accused goes on public trial without there being a real trial.

These complaints should be investigated by trained personnel and the parties given a chance to tell their story separately and privately. There has to be another process, whatever it is, that takes place outside of the public, and which can not become a political circus.

[Grasswire2]

3. They are political appointees vetted thoroughly by ideologues.

The Federalist Society. Opus Dei. Both were breeding grounds for GOP appointees.

Ramrodding the judges through has been goal number one.

And DiFi was bamboozled by Flake's "comity".