SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
brett kavanaugh
Trump White House Limited 'Sham' FBI Kavanaugh Probe, Senate Report Confirms
"The Trump White House exercised total control over the scope of the investigation, preventing the FBI from interviewing relevant witnesses and following up on tips," reads a new report.
Oct 08, 2024
"Our suspicions are confirmed," said one veteran women's rights advocate on Tuesday after a U.S. Senate report was released on former Republican President Donald Trump's suppression of a federal probe into Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) released a report after an investigation that he said took six years to complete due to a lack of access to Federal Bureau of Investigation correspondence and officials, but that ultimately revealed the Trump White House "exercised total control over the scope" of the FBI's investigation into allegations that Kavanaugh had committed sexual assault.
The report was released as U.S. voters in some states have already begun heading to the polls to vote in the 2024 election, in which Trump is running for a second term.
Whitehouse launched his investigation in 2018 after Kavanaugh was confirmed to the Supreme Court—a major victory for the far right as it sought to gut federal abortion rights, which the justices did in 2022. Kavanaugh's confirmation followed allegations of sexual assault made by Christine Blasey Ford, who testified at an explosive hearing, and Deborah Ramirez, a Yale classmate of the judge.
A supplemental background investigation into Blasey Ford's allegations was begun by the FBI in response to the allegations, but the probe failed to uncover corroborating evidence for Blasey Ford's claims—a fact that several senators cited when explaining why they voted to confirm Kavanaugh despite the accusations against him.
Whitehouse's report found that the supplemental background investigation was "flawed and incomplete"—criticisms that were shared by Democratic senators and rights advocates at the time—and furthermore, that Trump's claim that the FBI would have "free rein" over the probe was a "sham."
"The Trump White House exercised total control over the scope of the investigation, preventing the FBI from interviewing relevant witnesses and following up on tips. The White House refused to authorize basic investigatory steps that might have uncovered information corroborating the allegations," reads the report, titled Unworthy of Reliance.
The report confirms that the FBI received more than 4,500 calls and electronic messages about Kavanaugh, but on instructions from the White House, officials forwarded the tips to the Trump administration "without investigation."
"If anything, the White House may have used the tip line to steer FBI investigators away from derogatory or damaging information," said Whitehouse.
The report found that the FBI interviewed only 10 people before concluding the supplemental background investigation on October 4, 2018, two days before Kavanaugh was confirmed by an historically narrow margin.
The people interviewed by the FBI had "firsthand knowledge of the allegations," but agents did not speak to "the witnesses potentially with the most firsthand knowledge"—Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh.
"Sometimes having what you know confirmed doesn't make it better," said Ilyse Hogue, former president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, now called Reproductive Freedom for All. Hogue and other reproductive justice advocates sounded the alarm in 2018 that the FBI's probe was "a total joke" that "disregarded women."
With the Trump administration circumscribing the FBI investigation and prohibiting officials from following up on leads, said Whitehouse, "senators cast their vote on the confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee credibly accused of sexual assault by multiple women on the basis of a truncated and incomplete investigation about whose scope the senators had been misled."
Debra Katz, a lawyer for Blasey Ford, applauded Whitehouse's probe and called for the Office of the Inspector General at the FBI to investigate the "sham" that took place in 2018.
"The congressional report published today confirms what we long suspected: The FBI supplemental investigation of then-nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh was, in fact, a sham effort directed by the Trump White House to silence brave victims and other witnesses who came forward and to hide the truth," said Katz and Lisa Banks, another attorney who represented Blasey Ford.
Whitehouse said his investigation showed how the FBI's supplemental background investigation process "can be easily manipulated," and "would benefit from greater transparency."
"The FBI and White House should implement clear, written procedures that apply uniformly to the conduct of supplemental
background investigations—or at least to situations like the Kavanaugh nomination, where major allegations of misconduct surface after a nominee's initial background investigation is complete," reads the report. "Only then can the Senate be assured that a supplemental background investigation is used to gather rather than suppress information."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Bribery Has a Green Light' as Supreme Court Overturns Mayor's Conviction
"Snyder's absurd and atextual reading of the statute is one only today's court could love," liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in a dissent.
Jun 26, 2024
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday sided with a former Indiana mayor convicted of accepting a bribe from a business shortly after it was awarded municipal contracts, a ruling that one dissenting justice called "absurd" and critics said weakens public corruption laws.
Ruling 6-3 along ideological lines in
Snyder v. United States, the justices overturned the bribery convictions of former Portage, Indiana Mayor James Snyder, a Republican who took $13,000 from a trucking company after helping it obtain more than $1 million in city contracts.
Snyder maintains that the payment was legal compensation for consulting work. His lawyers contended that prosecutors failed to prove any quid pro quo agreement prior to the awarding of contracts, and that the prosecution of public officials for gratuities given after the fact criminalizes legitimate gift-giving.
"State and local governments often regulate the gifts that state and local officials may accept," Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the court's right-wing supermajority, adding that the anti-corruption law in question "does not supplement those state and local rules by subjecting 19 million state and local officials to up to 10 years in federal prison for accepting even commonplace gratuities. Rather, [it] leaves it to state and local governments to regulate gratuities to state and local officials."
However, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in a dissent joined by liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor that "officials who use their public positions for private gain threaten the integrity of our most important institutions."
"Greed makes governments—at every level—less responsive, less efficient, and less trustworthy from the perspective of the communities they serve," Jackson continued. "Perhaps realizing this, Congress used 'expansive, unqualified language' in
18 USC §666 to criminalize graft involving state, local, and tribal entities, as well as other organizations receiving federal funds. Salinas v. United States... imposes federal criminal penalties on agents of those entities who 'corruptly' solicit, accept, or agree to accept payments 'intending to be influenced or rewarded'."
"Today's case involves one such person," Jackson noted. "He asks us to decide whether the language of §666 criminalizes both bribes and gratuities, or just bribes. And he says the answer matters because bribes require an upfront agreement to take official actions for payment, and he never agreed beforehand to be paid the $13,000 from the dealership."
"Snyder's absurd and atextual reading of the statute is one only today's court could love," she asserted. "Ignoring the plain text of §666—which, again, expressly targets officials who 'corruptly' solicit, accept, or agree to accept payments 'intending to be influenced or rewarded'—the court concludes that the statute does not criminalize gratuities at all."
"The court's reasoning elevates nonexistent federalism concerns over the plain text of this statute and is a quintessential example of the tail wagging the dog," Jackson added.
Rolling Stone senior politics editor Andrew Perez, who covers money and its influence on politics and policy, noted:
The decision is hardly a surprise given the Supreme Court has consistently narrowed the definition of corruption under Chief Justice John Roberts—even before conservatives built a supermajority. Still, the Snyder case was exceptionally brazen and unusually ridiculous—and justices chose to hear this case amid an unprecedented controversy over reports that revelations they have routinely accepted and failed to disclose luxury gifts.
"It was a ridiculous performance and display from the justices, but it served a purpose," Perez added. "Now, delivering gratuities to politicians is legal; politicians can procure personal cash payments from companies after acting to their benefit."
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have been accused of inappropriately and possibly illegally accepting gifts or other perks from others including wealthy Republican donors with business before the court. Justice Neil Gorsuch has come under fire for failing to disclose a real estate sale to the head of a law firm subsequently involved in over 20 cases before the high court.
"With the Supreme Court's Snyder decision, it has made clear that bribery has a green light for elected officials—if it happens after the official act," Norman Ornstein, an emeritus scholar at the right-wing American Enterprise Institute, said on social media. "A court with utter chutzpah for its own ethics misconduct is saying ethics don't matter in governing—big money can rule. What a disgrace."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Database Reveals 'Staggering' $6.6 Million in Gifts to Supreme Court Justices
"The Supreme Court's gifts shouldn't be a secret—Congress must pass a binding code of ethics now," said one advocate.
Jun 07, 2024
U.S. Supreme Court justices have received millions of dollars in gifts over the past two decades—with far-right Justice Clarence Thomas being the main beneficiary of this largesse, according to a detailed analysis published Thursday.
The advocacy group Fix the Court published a database listing 546 total gifts valued at over $4.7 million given to 18 current and former justices mostly between 2004 and 2023, as identified by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The database also lists "likely" gifts received by the justices and their estimated values, bringing the grand total to 672 gifts valued at nearly $6.6 million.
The database was published a day before the justices are expected to release their financial disclosure reports.
"Supreme Court justices should not be accepting gifts, let alone the hundreds of freebies worth millions of dollars they've received over the years," Fix the Court executive director Gabe Roth said in a statement Thursday.
Thomas led the pack with 193 FTC-identified gifts collectively valued at over $4 million. Of these, he listed only 27 in financial disclosure reports.
According to Fix the Court, Thomas' gifts consisted mainly of
free trips to Bohemian Grove—a secretive, men-only retreat in Northern California—and Topridge, the private lakeside resort in upstate New York owned by billionaire Republican megadonor Harlan Crow.
By dollar amount, the late Justice Antonin Scalia came in a distant second with 67 gifts worth over $210,000 combined, while Justice Samuel Alito took 16 gifts valued collectively at just over $170,000. At the low end of the database, Justice Brett Kavanaugh received a single gift worth $100, while former Justice David Souter was also given one gift with a value of $349.
According to the analysis:
The tally includes the amount of principal and interest—$253,686—we believe Tony Welters forgave in 2008 for the luxury RV he gifted to Thomas the decade before. FTC's numbers include the tuition gifts, $144,400 across six years, Thomas received for his grandnephew... It captures the value of Thomas' yacht trips to Russia, the Greek Isles, and Indonesia, as well as some new information on the Thomas flights Tony Novelly paid for and the Scalia and Alito fishing trips Robin Arkley paid for that's included in the congressional record. The value of the gifts Scalia received on his ill-fated trip to Marfa, Texas, in 2016 are also included.
"Public servants who make four times the median local salary, and who can make millions writing books on any topic they like, can afford to pay for their own vacations, vehicles, hunting excursions, and club memberships," said Roth, "to say nothing of the influence the gift-givers are buying with their 'generosity.'"
"The ethics crisis at the court won't begin to abate until justices adopt stricter gift acceptance rules," he added.
Thomas' gifts from billionaire Republican donors—and his refusal to report them—have fueled calls for his recusal from some cases and even resignation.
Following intense public pressure, the Supreme Court last November announced it had formally adopted a code of conduct that was promptly slammed as a "toothless PR stunt" by the watchdog Revolving Door Project and others.
"The ethics crisis at the court won't begin to abate until justices adopt stricter gift acceptance rules."
"Headline after headline about Supreme Court justices accepting lavish vacations and eye-poppingly expensive gifts is bound to erode trust in the court," U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said on social media Wednesday. "We need to pass the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act and enforce a real code of ethics."
Fix the Court and other groups also support the Supreme Court Ethics and Investigations Act, which was introduced earlier this week by Congressman Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) and would create a Supreme Court Office of Investigative Counsel tasked with investigating ethical improprieties and reporting them to Congress.
Reacting to the new analysis, the pro-democracy group Stand Up America said, "The Supreme Court's gifts shouldn't be a secret—Congress must pass a binding code of ethics now."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular