FBI Background Investigation Client Should Be Senate

[quadtetra]

IIUC, the FBI background investigation is ordered by and done on behalf of POTUS. In situations like this, it is a huge conflict of interest. Since POTUS nominates someone with confirmation in mind, the incentive is to rig the investigation if a nominee has "issues" rather than investigate for truth.

(It would be like having the NTSB conduct a airline crash investigation paid for and on behalf of an airline!)

Therefore, if possible, the Senate should be able to order FBI background investigation with itself as the client. The FBI should follow the directions of the Senate on the parameters of said investigation and take no direction from the POTUS whatsoever.

Maybe from a legal standpoint, this isn't possible, I don't know. Maybe we need a new law for this. But my point is that the Senate should be able to order an FBI background investigation answerable only to the Senate.

[Grasswire2]

1. that little "gentleman" agreement between Grassley and DiFi was ruinous from the get-go

Senate Dems in Judiciary should have immediately pounced to demand structure for the investigation. Immediately. In that moment. Instead, there was Grassley and DiFi futzing around and then Dems being way too trusting assuming the investigation would be something that Pubs had no intention of allowing. We were played.

[quadtetra]

2. But regardless of what the Senate agreed to, FBI can ignore it.

That's really fundamentally the issue I'm raising. Suppose the Judiciary as a whole agreed on one week investigation and no restrictions on who they can interview. Well the FBI doesn't follow Senate orders. It isn't subject to Senate directives.

What I'm saying is to make it so that the Senate can order the FBI to do a background check subject to written Senate instructions.

[Grasswire2]

8. not according to what FBI experts have told us.

The WH is the client. The FBI is bound by the instructions of, in this case, Don McGahn, WH Counsel. And it is McGahn who has pushed Kav from the beginning and shepherded him through.

[BigmanPigman]

3. You're correct...

they should not be allowed to police themselves. That would be like allowing my students to make their own test with answers and letting them grade the tests. Not a smart idea.

[quadtetra]

4. Alternately, POTUS can just order FBI to follow Senate Directions

Suppose the Senate Judiciary agreed to the parameters of an investigation, let's call it Directive #XYZ.

The Senate should request that POTUS write a directive to the FBI to follow XYZ. The first line of the FBI report should then state that it conducted this report under XYZ.

If the POTUS refuses to order the FBI to follow XYZ, then the Senate should boycott the report and refuse to read it.

[Sucha NastyWoman]

5. No, I agree with your original premise

In your second scenario, if the President disagrees on the parameters, the Senate doesn’t get what it needs to do its job. They need the authority. It makes no sense for the President to be able to both nominate someone and also control what information becomes the basis of the information used to confirm/deny the candidate.

I absolutely agree with your original post.

[honest.abe]

6. I was thinking the same thing yesterday.

It makes no sense for the WH to control the only background check. The WH should do a background check before submitting the candidate to Congress. Then Congress should do another one they control.

[moondust]

7. Yes.

It's a ridiculous flaw in the system that the White House can limit the scope of a BI for a lifetime appointment and there's apparently nothing Congress can do about it before having to vote on the nominee. Rigged.