DOJ Issues Statement On Kavanaugh Background Check

[DonViejo]

Source: Talking Points Memo



By Matt Shuham

September 19, 2018 12:17 pm

The Justice Department on Wednesday made clear in a statement regarding Christine Blasey Ford’s sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh that it “does not involve any potential federal crime.”

The DOJ issued the statement about the FBI’s process after President Trump suggested that that looking further into Blasey Ford’s allegations is not “their thing” and Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley said that the FBI’s probe is “closed.” But it would take a simple request from Trump for the FBI to reopen Kavanaugh’s background report file — the same file Ford’s letter alleging the sexual assault went into last week.

A spokesperson for the Justice Department didn’t immediately rule out this possibility, of gathering “more background reports,” when asked.

Read the DOJ’s full statement below:

“The Department of Justice and the FBI conduct background investigations in accordance with a memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed by then-Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., and then-White House Counsel Robert F. Bauer in March 2010. The MOU provides as follows:

“‘[P]rior to an Appointee’s assuming the nominated position … if the FBI becomes aware of new information that raises questions about the suitability or trustworthiness of an Appointee … the FBI will so apprise the President or his designated representative as soon as possible.’

“The FBI does not make any judgment about the credibility or significance of any allegation. The purpose of a background investigation is to determine whether the nominee could pose a risk to the national security of the United States. On the night of September 12, the FBI received a letter dated from July 2018 alleging that the nominee engaged in an incident of misconduct in the 1980s. Consistent with the memorandum of understanding, the FBI forwarded this letter to the White House Counsel’s Office. The allegation does not involve any potential federal crime. The FBI’s role in such matters is to provide information for the use of the decision makers.”

###

Read more: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/doj-issues-statement-on-kavanaugh-background-check

[saidsimplesimon]

1. Beauregard, "I do not recall."

The fish rots at it's head is evident, imo.

[not fooled]

2. Uh, DOJ

Isn't lying to the Senate during confirmation hearings some sort of Federal offense?

[FBaggins]

5. It certainly could be

But here's the problem. Congress has to make a referral to DOJ... which means that a majority (in this case of either the Senate or the committee) would have to vote to make that referral.

On top of that... only a handful of such referrals have ever resulted in a successful prosecution. A study I saw a few years ago said (IIRC) five in the previous sixty years.

[BigmanPigman]

3. Sure, the moron will ask the FBI to do an investigation

against HIS nominee. I am not looking to buy a cheap bridge either.

[matt819]

4. Okay

This is mealy-mouthed garbage we have come to expect from the DoJ.

But okay. A sexual predator may not pose a risk to national security.

I'm still perplexed by the $200,000 credit card debt, country club fees, and the mortgage. Call me naive, but the disappearance of these debts for a guy who makes just over $200,000 a year does strike me as posing a risk to national security.

And, as I posted on another thread, where is the state of Maryland. They have just learned of a crime. The statute of limitations might not have passed - from what I read somewhere else last night, depending on how the assault is charged, there may indeed be no statute of limitations. Does Dr. Ford need to make a police report now?

[live2011]

10. There are a lot more questions that need answering.

We PRESUME the FBI did a background check on Kavanaugh. Funny there is nothing they found about any sexual assaults or gambling debts or credit card debts.

I also note that NONE of the Senators asked about these either. This "confirmation hearing" is a joke.

[lapfog_1]

6. The DOJ can investigate even if no criminal charges would be filed

not to mention that IF they take a statement from Kav and in the course of their investigation find that he lied to them... then a crime will have been portrayed.

However, what is asked is a simple background check... much like any that are undertaken for even a "standard clearance".

When the FBI investigated me... they went back to when I was baby... they asked old neighbors if they remembered me at the age of 3 or 4 and if I was a "good kid"... they investigated my bank accounts, my old college roommates, my girlfriends from high school. They asked if I ever took drugs (I didn't lie, I said that I had smoked weed in college), every aspect of my like was looked at. This for a security clearance to work at one of the TLAs (Three Letter Agencies) that I was told would be known as "The Brown Company".

To this day I cannot confirm to anyone (without a need to know and a provable clearance) that I ever HAD a clearance (or didn't have). I am not confirming that I got (or did not get) the clearance in this posting.

The point is... they can ask around about an attempted rape that Kav may, or may not, have committed in high school. They don't need to prove that there is a possible federal crime before asking around.

[FBaggins]

7. No.... they can't

Think about it for a minute outside of the current context.

There is no way that we want the FBI empowered to investigate people apart from accusations of a federal crime. Think how that could be misused if you had a corrupt administration (check) combined with an FBI inclined to do what the administration wants (whew).

However, what is asked is a simple background check... much like any that are undertaken for even a "standard clearance".

That part is accurate. However... background checks are done at the request of the WH and can only be done with the consent of the nominee (who presumably would not get appointed if he declined). The FBI can't initiate one on their own or at the request of some other party. Again... think what the country would be like if (after we take the Senate back), some Republican senator decided that he wanted the FBI to investigate someone.

In your scenario... you were applying for a clearance in order to obtain (or retain) a job - which permitted the clearance-granting agency (or whatever) to get the FBI to run the background check. The FBI doesn't grant the clearance. If one of your college roommates called them after the investigation was done to report that you had done something wrong, they would add that to their existing report, they wouldn't start calling around to begin a new investigation. It would be up to the clearance-granting agency to decide whether to do something with the new accusation or not. Which gets us right back to the WH having to request it if it's going to happen. If there were a Democrat-controlled Senate, they could tell the President that they wouldn't proceed without it (as likely happened with Anita Hill)... but the minority party can't do it.

Interestingly... if Kavanaugh were later picked to be the new chief justice and had to undergo a new confirmation... the new background check would look further into these claims.

[lapfog_1]

8. He hasn't been confirmed to this job yet

and while it is true that the executive branch would have to ask the DOJ for further information in this background investigation... my point in this post is that there does NOT have to be a suspicion of a crime in the past for the further investigation to take place.

There is nothing preventing the background check from continuing at this point... other than politics.

[FBaggins]

9. That doesn't leave us with a disagreement

But it also doesn't leave us with much hope. We already knew that the President could ask the FBI to further investigate, but also that he had no interest in doing so.

The only way to change his mind (as with Hill) would be for the Senate to say that they wouldn't confirm him without an additional investigation... but we also know that the Senate isn't sounding like they're going to say that.