The limit on the list of people the FBI plans to talk to about Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s past, as well as the difficulty many would-be witnesses are facing in their attempts to contribute their information, is raising Democratic hackles.
According to a Sunday New Yorker article, multiple people have tried to go to the FBI with pertinent information about Kavanaugh, only to be stymied by seemingly unorganized and uninterested agents.
One of these potential witnesses is Elizabeth Rasor, an ex-girlfriend of Mark Judge. Rasor says that Judge told her about an episode where he and his friends “took turns” having sex with a drunk woman, an act that seems to mirror Kavanaugh’s third accuser, Julie Swetnick’s, allegation. Judge has also been accused by professor Christine Blasey Ford of being an accomplice to Kavanaugh during a separate alleged sexual assault.
Another is an unnamed Yale classmate who wanted to corroborate Deborah Ramirez’s accusation that Kavanaugh had exposed himself to her at a college party. “I thought it was going to be an investigation, but instead it seems it’s just an alibi for Republicans to vote for Kavanaugh,” the unnamed Yale classmate told the New Yorker.
Both Rasor and the unnamed Yale classmate were allegedly stonewalled by the FBI, eventually being told to leave their accounts with an 800-number tip line.
According to the New Yorker, Blasey Ford herself also has tried to cooperate with the FBI, but per her attorney has “heard nothing back.”
A Sunday Washington Post report added that, per an unnamed U.S. official, the FBI does not intend to interview Swetnick or anybody who was not present during the first two alleged episodes.
Some are reacting with publicly-released letters.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to White House counsel Don McGahn and FBI Director Christopher Wray asking for a copy of the scope of limitations the White House initially gave the FBI, as well as any amendments that have since been added.
Some Georgetown Prep alumni are also taking their demands public, per the Washington Post, calling upon high school classmates of Kavanaugh’s to come forward with any information about the alleged sexual assaults or pertinent “background” information, no matter the “personal cost.”
Outrage indeed. I did not predict this, but am in no ways shocked that this “investigation” is just a charade a fig leaf over GOP corruption. Just check the box. “See, we gave you an investigation. Now let’s get on with confirming this psychopath and alcoholic”.
Outrage is exactly what the GOP wants… it’s easy to ignore
Meanwhile in conservative land, investigating information from others that he regularly drank to the point of incoherence and in one claim even to the point of assaulting someone with a beer, is “moving the goal posts”. I kid you not.
Dr Ford claims that he got stumbling drunk and violently attacked her. Evidence from others that he was indeed a violent drunk are unrelated to this, and shouldn’t be pursued? How does that even start to make sense?
NB: the weird part is that I now actually went and read the article in the extreme right-wing newspaper and the author in fact lays out for example exactly what the classmate Luddington claims, that Kavanaugh did indeed regularly drink to excess and became “belligerent” when he did. And yet the author still concludes that this is unrelated to Dr Ford’s accusations. Amazing. It’s an alternate universe where facts don’t work like facts.
Please proceed, Mr. Flake. That which you asked for is not being fulfilled.
It’s good that the media are scrutinizing this inquiry. Hopefully, they’ve made enough noise for Director Wray to push for FBI independence. I read, though, that Wray and Kavanaugh traveled in the same social circle at one time as Alex Azar is a friend to both. There is an element of a conservative male (mostly white) fraternity protecting each other here.
Politically, a sham investigation doesn’t really help Kavanaugh’s credibility nor does it make a ‘yes’ vote easier for Collins, Murkowski or Manchin. If they weren’t ready to vote ‘yes’ on Thursday/Friday, I don’t know why they would be ready to do so today.