The real question on Justice Kavanaugh's background check

Asha Rangappaは、イェール大学のジャクソン国際情勢研究所の上級講師です。. 彼女は元FBIの特別捜査官です, 防諜調査を専門とする. Follow her @AshaRangappa_. この解説で表現されている見解は彼女自身のものです. CNNでもっと意見を見る.

その. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island has called on newly confirmed Attorney General Merrick Garland to assist the Judiciary Committee in reviewing the FBI’s 2018 background check of Brett Kavanaugh before Kavanaugh joined the Supreme Court.

Asha Rangappa

Whitehouse suggested that the investigation into the sexual misconduct allegations against Kavanaugh wasfakeand did not follow proper procedures. The senator is right to ask for the review, but given the procedures that govern such investigations, he may be aiming at the wrong target.
    Background checks for political appointees are run out of the FBI’s administrative rather than criminal division. This is important in terms of the scope and latitude that the FBI has in pursuing these investigations. A criminal investigation has every investigative tool at its disposal, and does not conclude until the crime or threat has been resolved. These investigations are (at least in a normally functioning Justice Department) independent and free of political interference from the White House or Congress.
      By contrast, background checks like Kavanaugh’s are done on behalf of a requestingclient— in this case, ホワイトハウス. They are typically limited to interviews with people who know the subject and checks of criminal records and credit history.
        When a person joins government service or is nominated for a post, an initial background check will cover every place a subject has lived, traveled or worked since they were 18. The subject usually provides references, the FBI interviews them and then asks for other references, building an expanding circle of information.
        Background checks conducted after an initial background check — for example, if a person leaves government and returns a few years later — normally only go back to the end of the last check. This is important in understanding the scope of the FBI’s Kavanaugh investigation in 2018. After graduating from law school in 1990, Kavanaugh clerked for a federal judge, which would have required a background check.
          Letter to FBI flagged info on Kavanaugh alleged misconduct

            見ただけ

            Letter to FBI flagged info on Kavanaugh alleged misconduct

          見なければならない

          Letter to FBI flagged info on Kavanaugh alleged misconduct 02:09

          This check would have likely encountered people who interacted with him in high school and college. Kavanaugh then alternated between private and government jobs until his appointment to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals in 2006. 結果として, his 2018 background check would have only gone back to 2006, making the people interviewed well removed from his school years.
          もちろん, even Kavanaugh’s background check in 2018 would have likely uncovered possible red flags, like his large credit-card and other debts. In looking into people’s lives, the FBI goes by the mnemonic CARLA F. BAD, which stands for Character, Associates, Reputation, Loyalty, Ability, Finances, Bias, Alcohol/Addictions and Drugs. Kavanaugh’s debts could have been considered potentiallyderogatoryinformation affecting his suitability for employment.
          彼の rapid paydown of debt would also raise concerns, による Adjudicative Desk Reference used for security clearance investigations (although Kavanaugh has said friends reimbursed him for the tens of thousands of credit card debt he incurred by purchasing baseball tickets).
          The decision of what to do with derogatory information is up to the client — in this case the White House. Normally, the White House and the president would ask the FBI to dig deeper, to make sure a nominee is fit for a position of public trust and to avoid being blindsided or embarrassed by any new revelations. But it doesn’t have to. The FBI cannot, on its own, determine whether a subject like Kavanaughpasseda background check or not based on what it uncovers. ザ・ “adjudicatorfor that decision is — you guessed it — the White House.
          Which brings us back to the FBI’s investigation into the allegations by Christine Blasey Ford. Because Kavanaugh’s 2018 background check had already been completed by the time the allegations arose, only the White House had the power to reopen the investigation, not the FBI. Further, the White House determined the scope of the new investigation and it gave the FBI only a week to complete it.
          The question that remains is: Did the White House hobble the reopened investigation in any other way? 例えば, did it instruct the FBI not to interview particular witnesses, like Ford herself? Were agents prohibited from accepting or following up on information provided by possible new witnesses? Any such restrictions would be fair questions for the Judiciary Committee to ask of the attorney general.
          無料の週刊ニュースレターを入手

          CNN オピニオンの新着情報にサインアップ ニュースレター.

          参加してください ツイッター そして フェイスブック

            Had the FBI been conducted a criminal investigation, it would have left no stone unturned in getting to the truth. The FBI would have been free to obtain and follow leads through a tip line — as it has in its investigation of the Capitol insurrection — and could decide not only whom to interview, but also compel them to talk using judicial processes. But in an administrative background check, particularly one done on behalf of the White House, the FBI’s hands are tied.
            その. Whitehouse should follow the paper trail, though he may find that it leads not to the FBI, but to the former president, ドナルド・トランプ.

            コメントは締め切りました.