Last night John looked at what we should expect from the “expanded” FBI investigation into Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations against Brett Kavanaugh. (Shorter version: not much.) But just how “expanded” is it going to be? We’re once again getting two very different stories from the White House and the media. The usual “anonymous sources” from inside the administration were saying that President Trump was forbidding any investigation into the claims made by Michael Avenatti’s client, Julie Swetnick. Trump, on the other hand, was on the stage last night saying that it was open season for the FBI and they can talk to whomever they like. But it all needs to be wrapped up by the end of the week. (NBC News)
“I want them to interview whoever they deem appropriate, at their discretion,” Trump tweeted in response to an NBC News report citing multiple people familiar with the process who said the White House was limiting the scope of the reopened background investigation of Kavanaugh.
While the FBI will examine the allegations of Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez, the bureau had not been permitted to investigate the claims of Julie Swetnick, who has accused Kavanaugh of engaging in sexual misconduct at parties while he was a student at Georgetown Preparatory School in the 1980s, those people familiar with the investigation told NBC News.
 |
| Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez |
We should be clear that the FBI is yet again engaged in a task which is not a criminal investigation. It’s an expanded background check. In that context, and particularly given the brief turnaround time, some measure of common sense has to be employed. Given limited resources, are you going to channel your efforts into claims made by the next celebrity client of a lawyer who would probably have displaced P.T. Barnum if he’d been born a few generations sooner? Or will you go after the alleged meat behind the claims of Ford and, to a lesser degree, Ramirez?Read the rest from Jazz Shaw HERE.
If you like what you see, please "Like" us on Facebook either here or here. Please follow us on Twitter here.
1 comment:
Claims made by Avenatti's client are scandalous but were made under oath and in her name. So it is not proper to reject them out of hand just because the woman is represented by an attorney who seeks the limelight.
Avenatti graduated first in his class from George Washington University Law School, a relatively prestigious law school, he's successfully litigated a number of big dollar claims and his claims about Stormy Daniels have proven true, as far as is known at present. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Avenatti
Post a Comment