The FBI investigation into the sexual harassment allegations against Judge Brett Kavanaugh was only a couple days old and the liberal media already had the heavy equipment out to dig up the goalpost. Despite spending roughly a week comparing Kavanaugh’s confirmation to that of Justice Clarence Thomas and touting the speedy FBI investigation then, Sunday’s Good Morning America worried it was “overly restricted”. They were also eager to know what happens if Kavanaugh was the one caught lying.
“[T]he President assured reporters that the FBI will have quote ‘free rein’ to investigate the sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh. This, as there are now new questions this morning about whether that is actually true,” declared ABC co-anchor Eva Pilgrim near the top of the program.
They pouted about how the FBI had so far not reached out to Michael Avenatti’s client, the third accuser, Julie Swetnick who ridiculously accused a 17-year-old Kavanaugh of running a “gang-rape” racket in high school. Following’s ABC’s long-held editorial standard of only giving viewers half the information, they omitted how she was sued by a former employer for sexual harassment.
But during their report on the state of the investigation, White House correspondent Tara Palmeri noted a tweet from President Trump that described what he wanted from the FBI. “The President tweeting overnight, he wants the FBI ‘to interview whoever they deem appropriate, at their discretion,’” she read.
Yet despite that knowledge, in an interview a short time later with former FBI agent and ABC contributor Steve Gomez, co-anchor Whit Johnson was fretting about the direction of the investigation and suggested there were “limits set by the White House counsel”. He was also concerned the investigation was moving too fast: “The FBI has been given just a week or less to actually complete this high-priority investigation. Can they realistically get it done under that looming deadline?”
Further into his questions for Gomez, Johnson exposed that he had a particular person in mind who could be found guilty of lying:
What could wrong for Kavanaugh during the investigation? Not just the possibility of new information coming to light over the course of this week, but what if they find that he was in any way untruthful during his Senate testimony, which is a crime, what could that mean for him?
The only other concern Johnson had for testimony was from those who had sent statements to the Senate Judiciary Committee. And most of those supported Kavanaugh’s defense.
Beyond that, co-anchor Dan Harris brought on Clinton henchman George Stephanopoulos and shared fears that the investigation was “overly restricted by the White House,” and wanted to know “what are the political ramifications of that?”
After first noting that it’s likely the FBI won’t find anything new, Stephanopoulos suggested that the White House could bar the FBI from talking to anyone who says Kavanaugh was a heavy drinker in his youth:
The other hand, if, for example, they ruled out talking to anyone who’s had evidence of heavy drinking by Judge Kavanaugh in his past, that will lead to questions about how far the investigation went, whether it was sufficient to come up with questions.
But Kavanaugh admitted to being a heavy drinker during his late-high school and college years in his testimony. The Judge only contended he never got “blackout drunk”. That’s a big difference, ask nearly any college student. Stephy’s assertion here was meant to push the liberal media lie that Kavanaugh was portraying himself as a “choir boy” despite the fact he testified otherwise.
The transcript below, click "expand" to read:
ABC
Good Morning America
September 30, 2018
8:02:42 a.m. Eastern(…)
DAN HARRIS: You're looking at video, right here, of President Trump at a rally overnight in West Virginia, where he ripped the Democrats for their treatment of Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh.
EVA PILGRIM: However, before the rally, the President assured reporters that the FBI will have quote “free rein” to investigate the sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh. This, as there are now new questions this morning about whether that is actually true.
WHIT JOHNSON: And lawyers for a second accuser say she has been contacted by investigators. But Michael Avenatti, the lawyer for the third accuser, says the FBI hasn’t yet reached out to his client. We have team coverage this morning. George is standing by, but we start with ABC News White House correspondent Tara Palmeri. Who’s at the White House with the very latest. Tara, good morning.
TARA PALMERI: Good morning. The President is projecting an air of calm about this new FBI investigation. But once he got on the stump last night, he attacked the Democrats and defended his nominee.
(…)
PALMERI: This, as the FBI ramps up its new investigation into Kavanaugh. Agents moving quickly with their deadline less than a week away. Lawyers for Dr. Ford and another accuser, Deborah Ramirez, confirming to ABC News they’ve already been contacted by agents. But Kavanaugh's third accuser, Julie Swetnick apparently not contacted yet, according to her attorney, Michael Avenatti. The President tweeting over night, he wants the FBI “to interview whoever they deem appropriate, at their discretion.” The President also accusing Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee of leaking Dr. Ford's letter about the alleged incident.
(…)
[Cuts back to live]
PALMERI: While the President insists that he wants the FBI to have free rein. It's still not entirely clear how broad the White House will allow this investigation to be. Whit.
(…)
JOHNSON: As Tara just mentioned, two accusers have already been contacted by the FBI. An attorney for the third says his client has not. Where does the investigation from here, given the limits set by the White House counsel?
(…)
JOHNSON: The FBI has been given just a week or less to actually complete this high-priority investigation. Can they realistically get it done under that looming deadline?
(…)
JOHNSON: What could wrong for Kavanaugh during the investigation? Not just the possibility of new information coming to light over the course of this week, but what if they find that he was in any way untruthful during his Senate testimony, which is a crime, what could that mean for him?
STEVE GOMEZ: Absolutely. If he's found to have lied or maybe exaggerated the truth, or, embellished his statements, during the Senate testimony, or even in interviews that he had in leading up to this nomination or prior nominations, prior background checks, then at could be a problem. Whether it is legal jeopardy with some type of charge. Or it could be, just from a political standpoint and a confirmation stand point, that his information just doesn't seem truthful. And you'll have Senators that don't want to confirm his nomination.
JOHNSON: Specifically regarding some of his drinking habits and things like that. When they talk to these witnesses, when the FBI investigators approach these witnesses, we’ve already heard from some of them. Kavanaugh and Ford obviously testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Others submitted testimony -- sworn testimony in the form of statements. What will FBI investigators specifically be looking for as they interview these witnesses?
GOMEZ: They're going to test their credibility. They're going to look at their past statements. Whether it was done verbally or in written form. They're going to determine if what they had provided previously matches up with what they're now telling them in the interviews. And as we have seen before, when you're speaking to an FBI agent, if you lie to the FBI, you could potentially be charged. So, there's going to be a higher level of honesty, so to speak, by the witnesses.
(…)
HARRIS: If this investigation is viewed as somehow overly restricted by the White House, what are the political ramifications of that?
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Let's look at the flip side first. Let's say that they get through this week. They interview all the witnesses involved and no new information comes up. I think it's very likely that Judge Kavanaugh becomes Justice Kavanaugh. And from what we know right now, if they're only talking to the two accusers and the three other people Dr. Ford said was at the party back in 1982, then it's very likely that -- all they'll come back with is, “we can't determine much more about what happened there.” And that he will be confirmed. The other hand, if, for example, they ruled out talking to anyone who’s had evidence of heavy drinking by Judge Kavanaugh in his past, that will lead to questions about how far the investigation went, whether it was sufficient to come up with questions.
(…)
