1. The KillerFrogs

FBI and Kavanaugh Sexual Assault Allegations

Discussion in 'Killingsworth Court, Formerly The General Forum' started by gohornedfrogs, Sep 18, 2018.

  1. FBI Headquarters, interior, office of Special Agent Smith, criminal investigator...

    - Phone rings

    "FBI, Agent Smith... a new investigation sir?... Yes sir, I understand sir, can you tell me where this took place? ... No? How about when it happened? ... Just the year? You don't know the month or day? ... I see, are there any witnesses? ... Great! And they will be able to corroborate the allegation? ... No? Because they weren't in the room or... They deny the party even took place? So these are character witnesses for the accused? ... Her best friend? And she said it never happened? Well, sir, do you have anything we can use to begin an investigation other than the accuser's statement of events? ... No? ... Yes, sir, that is correct sir... Yes, that would be professional opinion of the matter... Good bye."

    - Agent Smith turns his chair back around towards his desktop, pulls a empty manilla folder from his IN box and writes "FORD INVESTIGATION" on top. Smith then closes the empty folder, pulls out a large stamp and pounds it on top of the folder, leaving behind a giant red "CASE CLOSED."

    "Well that was easy."
     
  2. I think you are trying to be funny...or at least hope so.

    If not, let me enlighten you: During my career, I had first-hand experience working with the trained professionals who do investigative work, including the FBI, CIA, DIA, military investigators (e.g., the AF Office of Special Investigations), and state and local police detectives. Overt and covert. Uniformed and plain-clothes.

    They have the skills, knowledge, and experience to gather information, develop leads, and "connect the dots" which lead to more dots.

    In the case at hand, there's already a long list of people for the FBI to interview (using their specialized skills, knowledge, experience, and "tools")--which will yield even more people to contact. In addition, the list of people coming forward volunteering to be questioned is growing by the day.

    Think the "Ford Investigation" is a folly? Google "cold case files solved".
     
  3. In the end it's going to come down to he said/she said and unless some changes their story and admits they perjured themselves, that's all they can put in the report. As far as I know, the FBI is not a jury. But what do I know? I'm just a simpleton as you have stated many times.
     
  4. Facts are a [ hundin].

    As many have pointed out this week, if you're telling the truth, you would welcome an FBI. If you're not, you wouldn't.

    Who's been asking for a full FBI investigation since Day 1. Who hasn't--and wouldn't yesterday when directly asked that question?
     
    TCUdirtbag likes this.
  5. On a related note, I heard Lindsey Graham on TV today bragging about his exploits as a defense lawyer when he was on active duty (Air Force) and how he successfully defended an airman Graham said was wrongfully accused of something.

    Here's my quintessential experience involving an Air Force defense lawyer (known as "Area Defense Counsel"):

    The daughter of a sergeant in my squadron reported to her teacher and school nurse that her father was abusing her physically and sexually. There was visible and forensic proof of both.

    As soon as I was notified, I had my First Sergeant deliver the sergeant/father to my office, where I read him his rights, gave him a direct order not to contact his wife or child, had him moved out of the household, and placed him in a supervised environment pending further legal action.

    During the days that followed, his defense counsel made repeated contact with his wife, convinced her that if here husband were to be court-martialed, that she would be left penniless, alone, and stranded in a foreign country. In the end, the defense counsel was able to get the wife--and the daughter--to both recant their testimony to the security police and Office of Special Investigation.

    The abuser was allowed to return to his home, then shortly thereafter, transferred back to the US, with his wife and daughter in tow. It still haunts me today knowing that in all likelihood, the abuse of his daughter continued.
     
  6. That's the problem, this isn't a criminal investigation it's a background investigation. The investigators have less than a week to run down leads and interview individuals who have already claimed the allegation doesn't match their memory of events in 1982. I realize cold cases get solved, but you have a 36 year old allegation without a place, exact time, or even a consistent story of who was present, and those that have been identified as present by the accuser all claim she's wrong. So, unless the FBI flips one of those individuals that already entered their testimony under threat of federal perjury and risk going to prison for lying to the committee, I fail to see exactly what anyone expects the FBI to uncover in the time allotted.

    Now, on the other hand, if your goal is to drag this process out, bring out more allegations, poison the well further, and demand the FBI investigate every single allegation, suspicion, and fart joke involving Kavanaugh then this week long investigation is nothing more than a stalling tactic. And when the FBI releases their findings, which is all they're going to do, the Democrats will latch onto any small detail the FBI reports to continue hitting Kavanaugh in an effort to completely derail his confirmation.

    As the fact stand tonight, Friday September 28, 2018, there isn't a single piece of evidence or corroborating testimony to bolster Ford's allegation, and absence any additional information or witnesses coming forward Kavanaugh should be given the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise...

     
    Leap Frog likes this.
  7. Couple of questions.

    Are you suggesting that your experience means you view Graham's client as guilty and he was lying about him being falsely accused? Did the evidence in your case point directly to the Sergeant or just confirmed that the daughter was assaulted? If you had evidence that the Sergeant was abusing a minor I would think that would make the wife and daughter's later recanting pointless as you could proceed with the prosecution based solely on the evidence in hand (this is an assumption based on my experience with CPS that resulted in my wife and I taking in our two nieces for over two years and the reporting rules we're required to follow as teachers).
     
  8. Did they "claim she's wrong"...or did they claim "they could not recall"...? Hmmm... And why did the best friend's statement that "she believed Ford's story" is always omitted when her "statement" is cited?

    There have already been multiple Yale classmates who have come out publicly to refute Kavanaugh's sworn testimony re: his drinking habits. Perjury just might be considered a disqualifying factor for a SCOTUS appointment...not to mention the "judicial temperament" (or lack thereof) discussed above.

    Are you including as one of the "facts standing tonight" that the third person in the room that night put out a statement today that he will cooperate with the FBI investigation as long as he can do so confidentially?

    Guess the American Bar Association and the Dean of Yale Law School are misguided also, since they have made public requests for the FBI investigation.

    Meanwhile, I'm wondering why the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee stopped their guest assistant prosecutor's questioning of Kavanaugh midway through his turn in the barrel. She was just starting to drill down on the details when she was booted.

    They didn't seem to mind her asking all the questions when Dr Ford was testifying.
     
  9. Trust me, if I could have, I would have ensured he was prosecuted to the max.
     
  10. I respect your service and expertise, but please list the people in the 110 year history of the FBI who called them and asked them to investigate themselves.

    In a long line of absurdities in our political history, this one is right there at the top. Not to mention, do you not see the incredible irony in NOT granting due process and the presumption of innocence to a Supreme Court nominee, since the very court he is nominated for granted him this right in the 6th Amendment in 1789?
     
    Leap Frog likes this.
  11. Again, I will ask, why hasn’t a single one of these accusers gone to the District Attorney in the jurisdiction the crime was alleged to have happened, filed a claim, and given their statement?

    If they truly want justice, and want a proper investigation, this is the only process in our legal system that can facilitate that.
     
  12. I suppose the DD Form 398's (Department of Defense Personnel Security Questionnaire) I submitted on several occasions during my career in order to obtain a security clearance (and subsequent special access upgrades) could be considered me asking the FBI (and other Federal, state, and local investigators) to "investigate myself".

    To keep those clearances, I suppose I could say I tacitly requested they "investigate myself" every five years when said clearances required periodic updates.

    Ditto for everyone in who has ever served in the military, federal civil service, and/or private sector contract personnel whose jobs required a security clearance.
     
  13. Now we are really getting into the weeds here. Kavanaugh did let them do a background check 6 times already — that’s the equivalent (x6) of what you are talking about above.

    The issue now is an investigation into specific allegations, which is not at all what you described above. I know you understand this.

    For what it’s worth, he did say he would welcome any investigation. He simply didn’t cave in to the absurd request that he ask the FBI himself.
     
  14. To be accurate, during the hearing he was asked if he would be willing to ask the White House to reopen the investigation...not to ask the FBI himself. The authority to reopen the investigation resided with the President.

    But, let's talk about that "6 times already" thing.

    Here's how background investigations are done. The DD Form 398 (or equivalent agency form) is always filled out. The first time you do this is a real pain (and it was even more so before computers and forms your could fill out on screen.) You list everywhere you have lived, who you lived with (family or roommates), military service and assignments, family members and associates, marital information (marriages and divorces), foreign travel, full and part-time education, personal references (friends, colleagues, classmates who have known you for the entire period the investigation covers), credit references, credit history, arrests, drug/alcohol use and mental health, organizations/memberships, and prior security clearances held (if any). That's 16 pages of information, plus any continuation sheets that may be needed when an answer exceeds the space the form allots.

    For an initial clearance, they check everything, interview everyone, plus more (for example: from the list of past addresses, they may go and interview random neighbors).

    For security clearance upgrades, especially Top Secret and higher (in my case SIOP-ESI and SCI) additional forms are required and more information provided which is used for an even "deeper dive" into your background.

    For the periodic reinvestigations, and for subsequent investigations like the "6 times" thing you cite, the investigators take the last investigation as a baseline and focus on anything that has changed since that time and focus their inquiry there. For example, if there's been a divorce since the last investigation, they will go out and interview the ex-spouse and others. If there's been a bankruptcy, they'll look at that closely. And, if anything pops up in terms of arrests, tickets, police complaints, etc., they'll definitely check those out.

    FYI. for judicial nominees, the ABA assessment is also repeated for each appointment.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...s-dismissed-those-too/?utm_term=.c98a1452cabd
     
  15. Before the hearing, Kristin Gillibrand (as well as numerous pundits) put forth the notion that, since he has not asked the FBI to investigate himself, he must be guilty.

    During the hearing, Durbin asked him to ask Trump’s general counsel, Don McGahn, to ask Trump to ask the FBI to investigate. I think you are rally parsing the words here. That is really a distinction without a difference.
     
  16. In this case, you gave them consent to investigate, just as Kavanaugh has done. It’s a requirement for some government service, and for the Supreme Court. Consenting to something that is required is a far cry from “asking” the FBI to investigate specific allegations against you. Our legal system simply does not work like that. Those who believe this have taken the 6th Amendment and turned it completely upside down.
     
  17. You mean this 6th Amendment?

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

    A Senate Judiciary Committee hearing = a criminal prosecution? Who's turning things upside down? Must be a Fox network thing.

    "When this allegation first arose, I welcomed any kind of investigation, Senate, FBI or otherwise...any kind of investigation -- Senate, FBI, Montgomery County Police -- whatever, will clear me." - Judge Kavanaugh's opening statement. Durbin just called Kavanaugh's bluff.

    Tidbit: Attempted rape was considered a misdemeanor in Maryland in 1982--with a one year statute of limitations.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...4051b6ad114_story.html?utm_term=.87f2402bb225

    Whether Kavanaugh or the "next person up" on the Federalist Society's list is confirmed, I believe Roberts will slide into the "swing vote" position.

    I'm out on this discussion--it's messing with my post-to-like ratio. :)
     
  18. Yes. That very 6th Amendment. He did not get a trial. He got tried in a Senate hearing, instead. And that trial hasn’t ended. He’s being accused of criminal activity, and he’s not being given the due process guaranteed him in that Amendment.

    Maybe I’m missing something, but your post just confirmed everything I’ve been saying. He won’t be denied a seat on the Supreme Court for a misdemeanor, even though that may have been the law at the time. Thank you.
     
    Leap Frog likes this.
  19. Ellison is on the ballot for a statewide office, holds a termed elected office of a non-governmental organization, and the allegations against him are being fully and thoroughly investigated.

    Kavanaugh is not on a ballot, is up for a lifetime appointment for which there is minuscule accountability, and the allegations against him were not, at the time of the uproar, being investigated.

    So no, there’s not a huge public wall-to-wall uproar re: Ellison as compared to Kavanaugh because it is a totally different scenario. If you can’t see the enormity of the difference here, I don’t know what to tell you.

    Also it’s not the mid-90s any more. The issue isn’t how we as a society or democracy handled wrongs that came to light decades ago—it’s how we do what’s right today.
     

Share This Page