Question: What are the most over-rated things in America
Don’t get me wrong. I am going to bash the Senate confirmation hearings and the week-long FBI investigation into the US Supreme Court nominee, but I am not going to bash the FBI agents. I will tell you here on the Truth Be Told Blog that Truth was not served in this matter. As good as FBI agents are, as compared to other country’s national domestic investigative agents, they are not superhuman and cannot jump tall buildings in a single bound. Given one week and a very narrow investigative checklist had them punching with their good arm tied behind their back. By definition, there is a process for doing additional background checks. You check off the boxes. You stay within the parameters set forth by precedent, but don’t take my word for it.
According to the 10-5-18 New York Times article written by Michael D. Shear, Michael S Schmidt, and Adam Goldman
“…. the F.B.I.’s usual “supplemental background investigation,” which is, by definition, narrow in scope.” was employed. “…… “And without a criminal investigation to pursue, agents could not use search warrants and subpoenas to try to get at the truth.”
The reporters went on to state, ” In all, 10 people were interviewed, and an 11th declined to cooperate. But the F.B.I. did not interview the two people at the center — Judge Kavanaugh and his main accuser, Christine Blasey Ford.”
Um, the type of “supplemental background investigation” conducted did not include interviewing the accused or the accuser, the agents had just one week and couldn’t use their everyday tools.
What was even more astounding was that both the accuser and accused were questioned before this “supplemental background investigation” was even conducted in a televised highly-partisan political slugfest by United State Senators. Truth-seekers? Please! Neutral fact-finders? We can pause for a minute to wipe our eyes after that belly laugh. The accused took the highly unusual steps by going on TV to state his case and also took out a Wall Street Op-ed piece to bolster it. Now he is officially a lifetime appointee to the highest court in the land, the ultimate triers of fact and law; kinda like the Barry Bonds of the Supreme Court.
As an investigator, I am troubled by all of this. Yes, I have seen cases where there was a rush to judgment and later it was found out who really committed the crime. I have seen cases where, in the absence of suspects (notwithstanding the grapevine or rumors), suspects were manufactured. How many times have we read about corporate greed or schemes where the auditors followed their protocols with a blind-eye?
I recall a case where a client gave me a small budget, a short time frame, no cooperation, and faulty information. After chasing my tail and getting doors slammed in my face, I reported to the judge exactly all of that. He agreed with me that the client was not really interested in getting to the truth. Needless to say, the client and I went our separate ways.
But what if that client was a really big client, say like the President of the United States or a Federal Employer who told me not to conduct a full investigation? What would I have done? Would I have couched my findings in government double-speak? Would I have soft-pedaled and not followed up on additional leads? What if I found out that truth was skipped over or overlooked during the original background check conducted by my fellow agents?
This politically-expedient quickie stinks for the agents that had to do the supplemental, it stinks for the accused, it stinks for the accuser-the alleged victim and it stinks for the American public and for other countries that would aspire to throw off the shackles of living in a place where there is no rule by law and who look to America as a beacon of hope.
What do you think?
