After Intense Questioning From Kamala Harris, FBI Director Confirms Kavanaugh Investigation Was ‘Limited’

Kamala Harris
Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images

The Senate Judiciary Committee questioned FBI Director Chris Wray on Wednesday about the process behind the FBI investigation into Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

California Democrat Sen. Kamala Harris grilled Wray on the process and how much influence the White House had over the investigation.

While Wray avoided questions about whether 40 witnesses were questioned that could know information about the sexual assault allegations made against Kavanaugh, he admitted to the Senator that the White House limited the scope of the investigation.

“Our supplemental update to the previous background investigation was limited in scope and that is consistent with the standard process for such investigations going back quite a long ways,” Wray said.

Harris pressed on, asking the FBI director who the Bureau had contact with in the White House.

“The communication between the FBI and the White House for nominations, including judicial nominations, is through the FBI’s security division, which has background investigation specialists, and the White House Office of security,” Wray replied. “Communication occurred between White House office of security and FBI security division.”


While Republicans claimed the background check was thorough enough to vote through Kavanaugh, top Democrats criticized the report last week, calling it “incomplete.”

The FBI reportedly did not interview Kavanaugh or Christine Blasey Ford in the investigation, although they did interview another accuser, Deborah Ramirez.

However, the lawyers of both Ford and Ramirez stated that they don’t think the FBI did enough to properly look into the allegations of sexual misconduct made against the now Supreme Court justice.

Harris brought up the number of witnesses potentially overlooked by the FBI, which she claimed there were more than 40 of.

“Again, I would say, what I said at the beginning, which is as is standard, the investigation was very specific in scope, limited in scope and that is the usual process,” Wray replied. “My folks have assured me that the usual process was followed.”

What do you think?

5 points
Upvote Downvote


Leave a Reply
  1. Limited? Like in having Feinstein sit on it for two months before seeking “extra-legal” work with a partisan law firm?

    Limited like the complete lack of investigative information supplied by Fprd (where, when, how and 36+ years) and her complete lack of corrorboration?


  2. Lies to the United states public. Lies to Congress and lies to the Supreme Court. When in the history of a country that we can no longer trust our representatives it is our duty to declare independence and overthrow a corrupt non responsive government. The declaration of independence and the constitution are now shams and the rule of law is no longer. Shame on congress, shame on the president, shame on the judicial branch of goverment. When a corrupt force exists it is our right and duty to make you all guil t and replaced. The Democrats have allowed this pres to get away with lies the Fbi to lie and Republicans to lie. We the people deserve better

  3. Yeah, the scope of the investigation was limited to verifiable FACTS, not allegations or fiction that the Democrats continue to spew!

  4. He repeatedly stated that the investigation was limited in scope the same as they always are and done following exactly the same processes that they always use for such investigations. Yet she still kept badgering him with the same question, trying to get him to say the FBI’s hands were tied more than usual for this case.

  5. He states that this is the standard course of action for all their investigations – that they receive their instructions from the White House. Therefore, there was no investigation. Though Ford came forward to warn Americans, she also came into a political battle between two parties causing a lot of fear from Republicans. Trump then holds a rally and inappropriately mocks Ford lying himself about her testimony saying she didn’t remember where she was or how she got there – but in her testimony she actually states where she was, and how she got there. So yes, the constitution needs to be changed so that leaders aren’t allowed to pervert the course of justice. Since JFK there has been corruption in government most Presidents trying to hide it and work pragmatically for the people, but here Trump is exposing the corruption by being the epitome of corruption itself. We can’t deny this is a wake up call – that the legal system itself needs to change so that politics can’t touch it… and then to place controls on the system so that future leaders become puppets of large corporations. Greed has always been bad karma… little did we know we have the worst terrorists and our archaic political system needs to change so that we do not allow it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

‘When They Go Low, We Kick Them’: Former AG Eric Holder Explains the ‘New Democratic Party’

Governor Condemns HS Marching Band Depicting Officers at Gunpoint — Army Vet Reacts