It’s not that it’s forever justified. It’s that it’s justified because they lied and didn’t do the investigation in the first place. Part of the remedy for not doing something you were supposed to do is that you are forced to do it.
This is a principle that transcends politics. It applies in any situation where you were supposed to do something, lied about doing it, and then someone catches you. They are always justified that you go back and do that thing. That’s why I used the example of the kid lying about cleaning their room.
I can’t see any reason to be alarmed by this general principle being followed. It’s just basic restitution. Any time someone can be made whole, there is an obligation to do so.
Because this is the same investigation they lied about doing before, the same justifications for it are sufficient. This would not apply to a new investigation. Just actually doing the original investigation they promised in the first place.
You can’t get out of doing something by just lying about it.
Congress has oversight over the executive and judicial bodies as an implied power of the US Constitution, in this case specifically due to their ability to impeach and remove civil officers. This is why they were empowered to investigate Bill Clinton and Donald Trump in recent years, and that same oversight authority applies to Supreme Court Justices (as it did to Samuel Chase who was impeached but acquitted in 1805).
Well, first of all, that’s frankly an intellectually dishonest argument technique, and I reject your framing.
Here’s my understanding of the situation, which may well itself be faulty, so please correct me if I’ve gotten any of this wrong.
Brett Kavanaugh was nominated for a seat on the Supreme Court. Christine Blasey Ford, first privately then publicly, accused him of sexually assaulting her when they were teenagers. They both testified before the confirmation committee. Several senators called for an FBI investigation into the allegations. President Trump initially ordered a “limited” investigation that severely curtailed who the FBI could talk to. Shortly thereafter, the Trump administration announced that the scope of the FBI probe had been expanded and that the FBI was free to interview anyone they thought was relevant. They never interviewed Ford or Kavanaugh themselves, which was known at the time. It was reported at the time that despite the claim that the investigation had been expanded, the FBI didn’t actually interview anyone beyond their initial limited pool of contacts.
So, my understanding, and this may be wrong, please correct me if I am, is that it was a cursory investigation. But it was known at the time it was only a cursory investigation. One week from the initial order to the conclusion, neither of the principles were interviewed, and only a handful of other potential witnesses were interviewed.
The most recent allegation, as I understand it, is that the FBI never actually set up a process for accepting tips and “walk-ins” who contacted the FBI to volunteer information, despite claiming at the time that there was a “tip line”. Further, there are supposedly “dozens” of witnesses who wanted to give information to the FBI but were rebuffed.
I’m not going to defend that, but…it was a cursory investigation, which we already knew. It was never anything more than PR stunt to begin with. And again, there is simply no requirement for an FBI investigation in a Supreme Court nomination process.
I don’t recommend either of your false dichotomy choices. What I recommend is looking into Senator Whitehouse’s allegations against the FBI, and how they conducted their investigation, and whether anyone in the FBI or Justice Department lied to Congress about the scope or conduct of that investigation.
What I also recommend is if any prosecutor or law enforcement agency with competent jurisdiction genuinely thinks there is a criminal case to be made against Brett Kavanaugh, they be allowed to conduct a thorough and independent investigation of him.
What I don’t recommend is a president of one party use the FBI to investigate a Constitutional officer of another branch of government, who “just happens” to have been appointed by his predecessor and electoral opponent from another party.
The original “investigation” was a sham. But that bell’s been rung. Brett Kavanaugh was duly appointed to office by the President of the United States, with the advice and consent of the United States Senate. You don’t like the outcome. I don’t like the outcome. But it’s done.
I will admit to a false dichotomy, and retract that question. I do not agree to your charge of intellectual dishonesty, which is fairly serious. I would appreciate a retraction on that accusation.
Your facts are correct. I am not sure why you are repeating them, since I never questioned them.
Do you mean the request for the investigation, or the investigation?
If you mean the request, I strongly disagree. It was an attempt by some Senators to get information critical to their decision, or to make it more difficult for the other side to ignore the accusations.
If you mean the investigation, I also disagree. When the FBI fails to do an investigation properly for PR reasons, it is not a “PR stunt”. It is a dereliction of duty.
We are in agreement that Senator Whitehouse’s allegations should be investigated.
We are in agreement that the results of a properly conducted investigation will not in and of itself change the status of Kavanaugh as a Justice.
The disagreement comes in what the consequences of an intentionally fraudulent investigation should be.
I will ask another question, without a false dichotomy.
Imagine a hypothetical Supreme Court Justice nominee who is confirmed by the Senate. It turns out that he never actually got his law degree, was married to two women at once, and had been convicted of child molestation and perjury. He lied about his criminal record under oath, and through remarkable and illegal means kept his history hidden through the confirmation.
After his confirmation, would you want to know about his true history? Or has that bell been rung?
I am not asking about whether the FBI should investigate. I am asking if you think it best if we had that information.
Let me know your answer and we can work from there.
Technically, you may be able to. If your lie gets you past a statute of limitations, for example, that may let you off the hook. If the lie itself is criminal, you may be in trouble for that.
He didn’t need to be vetted, he was groomed. I don’t know how people miss that this guy is a mental midget whose only qualifications were being a puppet for radical conservatives.
If you apply for a job that requires a background check, are you saying that they must omit any findings that you broke the law it the statute of limitations has passed?
But the FBI may have sabotaged their own investigation. It’s entirely reasonable for the present Congress to want to get to the bottom of this – who made this happen, and why did they want this to happen?
Agree with the position that at this point the primary question requiring investigation is one of the FBI’s handling of their ostensible background check, and that should be investigated by Congress (and DOJ or FBI Inspectors General if it comes under their purview).
Stop dreaming of a way of annulling Kavanaugh. That way lies a future Republican administration annulling the whole court.
This slippery slope stuff is nonsense. The modern Republican party will do whatever they can, and change the rules however they want, if they think it will benefit them. We should stop pretending like they have any scruples whatsoever.
But I agree that this shouldn’t be about Kavanaugh – it should be about the investigation. That it might dredge up bad things about Kavanaugh is absolutely not a reason to avoid doing it.
I know you technically can. My point is that you shouldn’t. I would argue that this is one of those exceptions where the statute of limitations shouldn’t apply. As I argued, you’d still be performing the original investigation, which was supposed to happen within the statute of limitations.
I’m arguing against someone saying they found the whole thing “alarming”—which is moral argument. I’m saying there’s nothing alarming about the idea that, if you lie about doing something and get caught, you have to go back and do that thing.
It’s a basic aspect of “making things whole” that you at least offer to do the thing you didn’t do originally that you were supposed to. And “making things whole” is actually basic principle in the legal system. It’s the argument behind trying to pay damages, and “irreparable harm”—the portion that can’t be made whole.
I’m saying I find it more alarming to argue that you can avoid doing something by lying about doing it, and then later, when you get caught, arguing “well, it’s pointless now.”
Just curious- I don’t recall anyone on this thread proposing annulling Kavanaugh. Maybe impeaching, which is an entirely different event. But I may have missed it. Could you please point it out?
You framed the dispute on your own terms, with one option (and by implication that side of the dispute) being by definition correct and the other option (and by implication that side of the dispute) being by definition wrong. You then demanded that I choose between those options. I think that’s an intellectually dishonest technique.
However, I am genuinely impressed by your intellectual honesty in retracting the question. That’s really not an easy thing to do, especially in a highly charged dispute like this one.
I was just trying to make sure I understood the facts of the situation. Thank you for confirming we agree on the basic facts.
The request on the part of some senators may well have been a genuine request for more information and a professional investigation by experienced law enforcement professionals. However, the investigation itself was never anything more than a PR stunt. It was by declaration a limited investigation, given only a week to investigate a decades-old cold case, and with severely circumscribed parameters as to who could be questioned. It gave political cover to “moderate” Republicans, and with the severe limitations it was conducted under, that’s all it was ever going to do.
And a key point to me here, is that all of that was entirely clear at the time. Senator Whitehouse’s allegations, if true, add some more details, but I can’t believe anyone at the time genuinely believed that the FBI had diligently followed every lead and exhausted every recourse. They had a week, and a handful of agents. There’s no way they physically could have conducted a thorough investigation.
Wait. What did the FBI do to “sabotage” the investigation? Senator Whitehouse’s allegation, as I understand it, is that the FBI simply didn’t follow up on tips and leads. Which, again, I am not defending, other than by pointing out, again, with the time frame and resources they were given, there’s not a whole lot else they could have done. Now, if FBI or DOJ officials lied about it, that’s another issue entirely.
Of course. But that’s not really analogous to what’s at issue here. Christine Blasey Ford made her accusations before Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed. She testified before the Senate. There were independent investigations by any number of media organizations. The senators who voted to confirm Kavanaugh were fully aware of the accusations against him, and heard directly from his accuser. They were satisfied with what at the time was clearly a cursory “investigation” by the FBI. They could have insisted on a more thorough investigation, without an arbitrary and insufficient time limit. Instead, they decided to confirm him anyway.
I didn’t demand anything at all. But I will not press the point.
In my example, I am assuming your response of “of course” means that you think it best that we had the information.
In the real world, Republicans did not want complete information, because at best it was highly unlikely to completely exonerate Kavanaugh, and at worst it would make it very hard to vote to confirm. In other words, they had strong incentives to hope the investigation did not provide useful information.
Senators who actually wanted a complete investigation were overruled. Only one accuser was heard from, others were not. Media organizations can not subpoena, or administer oaths. There was time for a more-than-cursory investigation, but the FBI did not use the available time, to the extent of possible obstruction.
As agreed above, it would have been best if we had that information, so Senators being “satisfied” is not really relevant to the best course of action.
So ignoring what badly motivated and, in my opinion, unethical Senators did, what is the best course of action?
I think the interest of open government and full disclosure is best served by doing a proper investigation. As I said above, this will not serve to overturn the confirmation, but will give the public the answers it was denied about a Supreme Court Justice. Denied answers to legitimate questions, not simply unasked questions. There is a big difference.
In no way does this set a precedent for reexamining any and all confirmations since 1787 by the FBI. This is a special case where a specific investigation should have been performed to a certain level, and was not. I would even concede that if Republicans had succeeded in completely shutting down any FBI investigation, none should be opened. But given that an investigation was called for, it should be done to some reasonable standard. Again, in my mind the goal is full disclosure. In my example above, a nominee who clearly should be disqualified based on hidden facts should not get away scot-free if he is able to suppress the facts until the moment of confirmation.