Not according to the source. If Avenetti has other information, it’s not been released, and as it stands this just another allegation of an allegation.
If there is to be another investigation into Kavanaugh, people need to quickly provide actual evidence, not unsupported rumour designed to discredit him. That evidence should also be provided to the relevant police departments so a proper investigation can happen.
In my understanding of background checks, the FBI does not routinely dig for dirt, but rather checks financial records and interviews friends of the one being investigated. I had a background check for my security clearance (2, in fact), and neither one dug into any of my college drinking/partying habits in any way. They interviewed friends and coworkers, dug into my (very little at the time) financial background, and that was about it.
It’s different when there’s an actual allegation. Then the FBI can interview the accuser, the ones the accuser says were there or nearby, interview other classmates and peers, and much more. And people will be a lot more reticent to lie to the FBI than to the public.
The people going all in on “6 background checks” seem to have no idea what is involved in one. Have you never been interviewed by the FBI for one?
I would expect the checks on a Federal judge to be more in depth than for you, no offence meant of course. Maybe not under the current dysfunctional administration, but as I understand it he was investigated under the previous one, and it would greatly surpsise me if that didn’t involve checking if there had been previous criminal behaviour, including interviews with friends and aquaintances from his whole life.
If not, it would seem that we don’t really know if any judges have the required moral character for the job.
Not really about evidence and proof as it is not about acquittal or conviction. Its about trust, its about putting enormous long-term power in his hands. Will anyone tell me that this is the best the Republican Party has to offer? What special qualities does he bring? His loyalty to reactionary Republican views is unquestioned. Is that it, then?
Is it his legal scholarship? Legal scholars all over the country gasp in admiration for his clear grasp of foundational principles, like “Them that’s got gets to keep it, them that’s got nothing gets to keep that too!”. Never been closer to a law school than delivering a pizza, so maybe he is, maybe somebody is itching to show us how widely admired his scholarly work is. Just hasn’t gotten around to it yet.
Its about trust! Do we trust this person with awesome power for the rest of his life? He has been described, and humbly accepts, as an amazing human being, one in a thousand, a million perhaps. A person of such profound intellect and spotless moral character that we have no qualms, no misgivings about raising him to the heights of power? (Its a kind of secular sainthood, isn’t it. we won’t accept that someone should be President for more than eight years!)
Dare we hope that the requirement of trust for that position exceeds what we might expect for a seat on the County Board of Revenue?
We do dare, do dare, all the livelong day. We need proof to deny someone their freedom, we only need doubt to deny our trust.
I would expect they might be a bit more in depth, because a judge is going to be a lot older and with more job and financial history than I was when I was investigated (in my 20s). But I still doubt they go looking for dirt to dig up, or anything to the level of “opposition research”-style muckraking. So I wouldn’t be surprised if many judges out there have similar sins in their background, uninvestigated and uncaught. One of Kavanaugh’s former bosses was one of them (Kozinski, IIRC), in fact, and he had to step down.
NPR is reporting the story about Ramiriz but no mention of the Avenati claim. Ramirez admits she was drunk and had to spend days recovering her memory. But… there are supposedly people who corroborate her story and sent e-mails about it long before this nomination. The FBI should see those e-mails.
I am no expert on these background checks, but it’s my understanding that they go back only 7 - 10 years. Am I wrong about that?
shrug
How long did Ailes, Cosby, etc. get away with their crimes? How long were the accusers dismissed before the weight of their sins caught up to them? O’Reilly…the list goes on and on.
Women have been ignored, their accusations dismissed, the crimes minimized, for decades. They’ve been branded as liars, or a sluts who deserved what they got. For reasons political, social, financial they’ve been marginalized and made ashamed of being the victim. It’s only when one can make her voice heard, that the dam breaks, and more are emboldened to come forward with their truths.
That’s starting to change, way too slowly. Slowly, because of the attitudes espoused by too many in this thread, and a refusal to accept truth for political reasons.
Investigate Kavanaugh.
It depends on the hiring agency and the question. The CIA only looks back 7 years on drug questions, for example. There is no across-the-board time limit. But they are not at all designed to dig up sexual assault claims. They might stumble across them from time to time, but clearing the background check is not a reliable indicator of a crime-free past.
He’s gonna need to find a lot more of his old personal calendars…
I am pretty surprised that most media is not reporting that GOP leadership knew of the second case and reacted to it by trying to speed up the timetable before it could drop.
I readily admit that I know who I believe is being truthful and who is lying, but I would have no problem admitting that my assessment was wrong. If a real and professional impartial investigation, with the FBI interviewing multiple past classmates, came up with a consistent denial of awareness of anything like what is being alleged (because dang, “house parties” like the ones being described would have some wth some memory of them, even if they would be reluctant to admit to their own participation in them), then I’d conclude that on this at least he is being truthful.
Failure of Kavanaugh to ask the president to request the FBI do such an investigation is somewhat telling.
My feeling is that those who tout “six background checks” either actually don’t know or know but don’t care what a background check usually includes. In my experience filling out an SF-86, there’s no real way for possibly illegal but never reported allegations to come up. Heck, some out of the questions are straight out of the Cold War.
As someone else said, let’s forget about the allegations for a moment. We’re still left with multiple counts of apparent perjury, mysterious “baseball ticket” money and thousands of documents detailing his days in the GWB admin Republicans refuse to release. The check would never catch something like the new allegations, but it sure as hell should have caught strange financial activity like $200,000 in debt just disappearing with no good explanation of where the money came from.
I was just interviewed for one for a friend. We went back more than 20 years in the interview.
Brett and Fat Donny , birds of a feather flock together.
?
Yes, Mark Judge believes that getting women extremely drunk and then taking turns having sex them is a form of consensual sex. Even more so likely if a ruffie was involved.
Do you believe that?
Do we know he hasn’t? Trump is not famous for listening to advice from others. I expect we will get Kav’s views on an additional FBI investigation no later than Thursday this week.
I believe Kavanaugh is toast.
What I specifically believe is that today and tomorrow, Mitch McConnell will hear from a nontrivial number of Republican Senators whose message will be, “don’t make me vote on this, I’m screwed either way.” And Mitch will find a way to make that happen. He’s evil, but he’s not stupid.
Just let it go on a little while longer. Is that so much to ask?
Would it be too much for Kavanaugh to walk up to a mic and say “I’m innocent of these accusations and I would welcome an investigation by the FBI into these false accusations so that my confirmation will be without any suspicion of wrongdoing.”?