wooglin,
read her letter.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/16/polit...ein/index.html
Dear Senator Feinstein;
I am writing with information relevant in evaluating the current nominee to the Supreme Court.
As a constituent, I expect that you will maintain this as confidential until we have further opportunity to speak.
====
doesn't say that she just solely wanted to remain anonymous; it says she wanted the letter and the contents therein confidential. which she did, even from -Dems-.
the initial media outlet that broke the story wrote:
https://theintercept.com/2018/09/12/...nne-feinstein/
Eshoo passed the letter to her fellow Californian, Feinstein. Word began leaking out on the Hill about it, and Feinstein was approached by Democrats on the committee, but she rebuffed them, Democratic sources said. Feinstein’s fellow senators want their own opportunity to gauge whether or not the letter should be made public, rather than leaving it to Feinstein to make that call unilaterally. The sources were not authorized to speak on the record, and said that no senators on the committee, other than Feinstein, have so far been able to view the letter.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...ion-ford-trump
Totally false. What was the point of the letter if she didnt want it revealed? It was meant to be considered by the judiciary committee, but Feinstein sat on it instead. What she didn’t want revealed was her identity. Had Feinstein and the lawyers not had other plans, this could have been investigated privately and Ford could have remained anonymous.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/16/polit...ein/index.html
Dear Senator Feinstein;
I am writing with information relevant in evaluating the current nominee to the Supreme Court.
As a constituent, I expect that you will maintain this as confidential until we have further opportunity to speak.
====
doesn't say that she just solely wanted to remain anonymous; it says she wanted the letter and the contents therein confidential. which she did, even from -Dems-.
the initial media outlet that broke the story wrote:
https://theintercept.com/2018/09/12/...nne-feinstein/
Eshoo passed the letter to her fellow Californian, Feinstein. Word began leaking out on the Hill about it, and Feinstein was approached by Democrats on the committee, but she rebuffed them, Democratic sources said. Feinstein’s fellow senators want their own opportunity to gauge whether or not the letter should be made public, rather than leaving it to Feinstein to make that call unilaterally. The sources were not authorized to speak on the record, and said that no senators on the committee, other than Feinstein, have so far been able to view the letter.
So you’re claiming the Judicairy committee has to have the scope and parameters set by the White House for every FBI background investigation done for nominees? Have you actually checked that? Because that’s what this was as well. The FBI submitted twelve 302 reports, which is the same reports submitted the other six times it investigated Kavanaugh and every other nominee, because that’s the FBI’s role here.
It’s funny how on the one hand dems like to say this isn’t a criminal investigation so due process and presumption of innocence don’t apply, then on the other expected the FBI to to handle this like a criminal investigation. Just another bullshit talking point.
It’s funny how on the one hand dems like to say this isn’t a criminal investigation so due process and presumption of innocence don’t apply, then on the other expected the FBI to to handle this like a criminal investigation. Just another bullshit talking point.
With a background check for a Supreme Court nominee, the FBI is much more limited by the White House, its effective client. The White House sets the parameters: who the FBI interviews, the scope of an investigation, what specific allegations the FBI is expected to look into, and how long the background check can take. All of this makes it much more difficult for the FBI to get to the bottom of a case.
“The White House is in control of this. They might make decisions under pressure from the Senate, but they, ultimately, are in control of this,” Asha Rangappa, a former FBI agent, told Sean Illing at Vox. She added, “If the White House shuts it down, there’s nothing the FBI can do. This will be over, no matter what the investigators discover. Because this isn’t a typical criminal investigation, the FBI doesn’t have any independent authority here.”
In fact, the FBI is not expected to get to the bottom of the case. For a criminal investigation, the FBI would typically give a conclusion, based on its interpretation of the facts. But for these kinds of background checks, the FBI does not; instead, the law enforcement agency only provides the information it gathers — names, dates, answers to questions, that kind of thing — and lets the White House and Senate interpret the facts as provided.
“The White House is in control of this. They might make decisions under pressure from the Senate, but they, ultimately, are in control of this,” Asha Rangappa, a former FBI agent, told Sean Illing at Vox. She added, “If the White House shuts it down, there’s nothing the FBI can do. This will be over, no matter what the investigators discover. Because this isn’t a typical criminal investigation, the FBI doesn’t have any independent authority here.”
In fact, the FBI is not expected to get to the bottom of the case. For a criminal investigation, the FBI would typically give a conclusion, based on its interpretation of the facts. But for these kinds of background checks, the FBI does not; instead, the law enforcement agency only provides the information it gathers — names, dates, answers to questions, that kind of thing — and lets the White House and Senate interpret the facts as provided.
Comment