Will The Supplemental FBI Report Be Leaked?

1. 86

   RJ Schwartzposted 5 years ago

   Reports are that the FBI will deliver one single copy of the supplemental investigation to Capitol Hill where it will be kept in a safe.  The White House gets to see it and so does the Senate Judiciary Committee, but it will not be made public.  Also access will be restricted and there will be no statement by the FBI on any conclusions.
   
   Senators and 9 aides are the only ones given the authority to read the raw data and no copies will be made.
   
   Do you agree with this?  Do you expect it to be leaked?  How soon and by whom?  Should anyone who leaks be subjected to Federal punishment?  Should the public be made aware of background checks in the future?

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      It will be announced (not leaked - announced) within 24 hours of being seen.
      
      You'd have to list a law under which the leaker could be charged - I'm not aware of any.
      
      Absolutely not.  Bad enough that anything either party thinks will help them will be released - don't make a person's entire life a glass house any more than necessary.

      replyreport
   2. 88

      GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Hi RJ, I am hopeful, (but admittedly pessimistically so),  that it will not be leaked. The job is the Senate Judiciary's, and I think they alone, (along with the president), should see it.
      
      But, I am also hopeful they will talk about their reactions and perspectives relative to the report. I don't think the public has any 'Right' to see the details of the report, but I do think they have a Right to the committee's evaluations. If there are contentions, I am sure the opposing forces on the Judiciary Committee will make them clear.
      
      GA

      replyreport
   3. 82

      Don Wposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Cynic that I am (or optimist depending on your point of view), I think the question is not "will it be leaked?" but "when will it be leaked, and who by?"

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Ed Fisherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         
         
         Right along party lines.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Ed Fisherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            And it's your media too !

            replyreport
         2. 82

            Don Wposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            So NBC is "fake news" when it says something you don't agree with; a reliable source when it says something you agree with. That's a double standard I am seeing a lot.
            
            In terms of Kavanaugh, it's not a surprise the vote on Kavanaugh going ahead. I've been predicting as much for days.
            
            There is no way the GOP would pass the opportunity confirming Kavanaugh represents.
            
            Kavanaugh will likely be a Supreme Court judge. But, politics aside, I think we know he doesn't deserve to be after his testimony at the last hearing.
            
            That's politics.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Ed Fisherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Don W , Apparently It does no good to point out the obscene hypocrisy  of your own media bias and misdirect truths ,  Either you and they "get it"   or you don't , the most obvious intent of your media today is to distract from reality  , to date your's won with it's followers ..........Now shall we ignore it when your own dying news media begins to see the inevitable truth , that lies  aren't believed by everyone ?
               
               AS to NBC , no. They're still fake .

               replyreport
               1. 82

                  Don Wposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  "AS to NBC , no. They're still fake"
                  
                  Ok, so the graph you showed is fake. Thank you for the clarification.

                  replyreport
   4. 0

      promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      The FBI is raising a middle finger on the report. They had only a week to do the entire investigation, but they finished the report after 3 days and interviewed only 6 people.
      
      Seriously, it's easy to see they think the whole thing is a joke. So does any rational and open-minded American.

      replyreport
      1. 88

         GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Hey promisem, just to be a contrarian, let me argue with your numbers. (not that my internet authority sources are any more trustworthy than yours).
         
         There is a Senate 'Executive Summary' of the FBI report floating around that says the FBI interviewed 10 witnesses, and reached out to eleven more. One was specifically mentioned as refusing to cooperate, but I am not sure what "reached out" means regarding the other 10; couldn't confirm contact, or interviewees declined. *shrug*
         
         *As a note, I think the summary did say Debbie Ramirez was one of the interviewees.
         
         Also, I think I recall hearing that the FBI started their investigation Friday evening, the same day it was requested, but I am sure I read that they were on the ground Saturday, the following day. They finished Wednesday - that makes 5 - 51/2 days, not 3.
         
         I haven't heard that the FBI "raised the middle finger on the report." What have you heard, or what do you mean?
         
         That they were specifically tasked, rather than broadly tasked, (ie. Mueller), seems a reasonable request. There has been no proof produced that they were restricted in what they could do to meet their task, (contrary to many claims)  - so why would the FBI think it was a joke?
         
         Help me promisem, my rationality and open-mindedness are at stake here.
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 95

            wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            "There has been no proof produced that they were restricted in what they could do to meet their task, (contrary to many claims)"
            
            I've seen that claim several times as well, but never without any supporting backup.  I'd like to see some too.

            replyreport
         2. 0

            promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            GA, I count on you to keep me in line and offer a contrarian view to my own. 
            
            I have heard multiple and conflicting reports on how many people they interviewed. The one I heard most recently is 6 identifiable people. I read from mutliple sources that they were told to exclude quite a few critical people such as Ford, Kavanaugh and Swetnick.
            
            Your days are correct assuming they interviewed through the weekend, which we can't verify and which assumes they work weekends on a flimsy and politically motivated project.
            
            My general point remains that the length of time given to the FBI is highly suspect, and the fact that they turned in the report two days early makes it even more suspect.
            
            I believe the FBI thinks the extreme limits from the deadline and the limit on who they can interview is why they think the report is a joke worthy of a middle finger.
            
            My rationality and open mindedness is always open for review.
            
            https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 … esses.html

            replyreport
            1. 88

               GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               It looks like we have an understandable disagreement promisem, because, it also looks like we have a different perspective on what was supposed to be investigated.
               
               You appear to feel, (as, apparently,  do many others), that the investigation should have been to address all of the character issues brought up by the hearing.
               
               My perspective is that the investigation, as requested and agreed to by the Judiciary Committee members, was to further investigate the Ford allegations vs. the Kavanaugh denials. And secondarily, because of the associated actions, the Ramirez accusation.
               
               I think they, (the FBI), did just that. They interviewed, (I am given to understand), all the names relevant to the Ford accusations, and Debbie Ramirez too. Given various media reports I am not surprised, nor disappointed, that they did not pursue the Swetnick accusations. They were, by my thinking, outside the mandate of the investigation.
               
               Consider that the heart of the democrat's opposition was Ford's accusations, and they were the basis of their demand for an investigation. Well, they got their investigation - along the lines they were demanding. That, once they got what they demanded.  they enlarged the scope of their demands, (Ramirez, Swetnick, black-out drinking etc,), is also, to my thinking, a secondary issue regarding the FBI's performance.
               
               How many more names do you think the Ford accusations, or Kavanuagh's refutations, included? 10 or 11 sounds reasonable to me. And given what I would imagine the priority the FBI assigned to this, 5 days of multiple agents working these interviews also seems reasonable.
               
               Do you understand the scope of the requested, and agreed to, investigation to be other than I described? Remember, we are not talking about what you think' should have been its scope, but what was actually defined as its scope?
               
               Yep, 5 - 51/2 days does sound reasonable to me.
               
               GA

               replyreport
      2. 95

         wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         It IS a joke!  Democrats have demanded an investigation of an alleged incident from 30 years ago without physical evidence or witnesses.
         
         There is nothing to investigate and never was.  It is a joke.

         replyreport
2. 61

   Live to Learnposted 5 years ago

   Leaked? I think it should be broadcast. I think both parties should want the findings broadcast.

   replyreport
3. 89

   IslandBitesposted 5 years ago

   "In the course of its investigation, the FBI decided to reach out to eleven people, ten of whom agreed to be interviewed."
   
   
   https://www.foxnews.com/politics/read-t … llegations

   replyreport
   1. 88

      GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Ha! In my quick Google search to refute your 'cut & paste', and smite your "fact" like a beheaded chicken, I found ....
      
      You are right. That explains why only one person was mentioned as refusing to cooperate.
      
      But there is another puzzler. If 10 were interviewed, and the oft-described 302s are the FBI's summaries of each interview, then why do several of the "Executive Summary" sources repeat the quote that the report included 12 302s? Who was interviewed multiple times?
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 89

         IslandBitesposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         True. I have no idea.

         replyreport