Well having a detail record of every person who worked or was clergy at each church along with a detailed record of who was alterboys and girls probably helped a whole bunch. Not even close to the same situation.

So you think that there were numerous incidents, involving multiple people, who could name a time and place that the incidents occurred, but that their allegations or complaints were covered up?

Did Kavanough move from school to school as administrators tried to cover up his abuses?

To try to draw any connections from one situation to the other is intellectually lazy, or dishonest.

Do you have anything to contribute other than color commentary on my contributions?

I was being serious. By your normal standards, it was insightful.

For crying out loud, it's like the people here questioning the FBI's ability to investigate this have never watched a mystery movie or read a book in their life. Such a lack of critical thinking and imagination.

And to your statement about where are they going to get such a detailed list for this investigation. They have it or can get it easily. A list of all his and her classmates, friends in clubs, oh and it has pictures....it's called a yearbook.

Dammit would you stop being so damn practical and reasonable! There are some people here trying really hard to make inane arguments and you're just undermining their efforts.

I have no idea if he did or didn’t do it and if the FBI wants to investigate it great. I’m just not seeing where that gets us beyond here.



For what it's worth, I don't think a full investigation will help either but it will do the most important thing, it will show that the accusations were taken seriously. To just dismiss this whole thing will mean it follows Kavanaugh for the rest of his life. If I were Kavanaugh, and was innocent of everything as he claims, then I would go out and make a public statement demanding that the FBI (or any other investigative team) investigate and that the confirmation be delayed until that it's done.

Holy crap did I say they didn’t have a detailed list on who to talk to? Seriously? The yearbook still doesn’t give them information about which party, which date etc. We’re not talking about who to question. I know they can get a list of people. No one has ever said that the FBI can’t figure out who to interview, what to interview about how to do the interview.

I know they are great at there job but equating this to how they figured out the church sex scandal is absurd. They literally had written proof of who was at which church when. In this case they would need to have people remember a specific party, and who was at it 30+ years ago. These parties happened all the time it’s an insane ask. If they had rollcall at each party and kept track for their party all summer club eligibility that would at least be closer to the info they had for the sex abuse cases.

Let’s say with some miracle they can actually figure out which party the date etc. All that proves is that they were at the same party, which based on how many parties occurred I have no doubt in my mind they were at parties together.

Kay at least gave a decent answer on the FBI investigation potentially determing if Judge Is lying. Acting like people are arguing they don’t know how they would find someone to interview isn’t even close to what people are saying.

Here's an example of a *judge* being held to account for sexual abuse that occurred 40 years earlier.

Exactly, we should make a reasonable effort to determine if these allegations are true. If we end up exactly where we are now, we can at least say that we tried. This is a lifetime appointment and the legitimacy of the supreme court will be damaged if there are questions about how serious these allegations were taken. If it is seen as the the Republicans plowing through (to qoute McConnell' actual freaking words), it will hurt the legitimacy. Having a reasonable investigation will help address that, since we can say at least we did something.

Look at how different the Anita Hill hearings are seen now. Think in 20 years where society will be then, do you think this situation will be seen in a positive light? Because in 20 years Kavanaugh will probably still be on the court.

But your assumption is people would participate beyond what they already have without the power of subpoena or under oath. I respond to a friend’s security clearance inquiry because I like my friend and want to help him out. Not because I’m compelled to. This guy judge and other witnesses have already said they were not present or denied the claims. You think it will change because some FBI agent shows up to ask question? I don’t make a habit of talking to law enforcement officials without a clear understanding of the rules of the game. If I witness a crime, I’ll tell them what I saw. If they start asking me questions that suggest involvement in the crime, I’m calling a criminal attorney, since that isn’t my specialty.

There is no way you can gain reliable witness here without the power of subpoena or oath. So said investigation just officially documents the he said she said argument with a few sprinkles of friends giving insight. But no legal or criminal investigation opinion. Just political fodder.

How is that not any different than the senate committee doing it, which does have the power to subpoena?

Oh, it stalls it longer than this circus already has. Gotcha.

This isn’t the job of the FBI, and falls under the domain of the senate in the co-equal branches of gov’t. Unfortunately, much of what happens in the senate is political. Aren’t there a couple FBI agents here who could explain why this isn’t the job of the FBI?

Oh dear God. We're back to page one of the other thread.

THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH HAS THE POWER TO INSTRUCT THE FBI TO EXPAND THE BACKGROUND CHECK TO INVESTIGATE THESE CLAIMS. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CRIMINAL LIABILITY, AN OFFICIAL COMPLAINT BY THE ACCUSER HAVING TO BE MADE, OR ANY OTHER REASON YOU WANT TO FIND TO AVOID HAVING THE MOST QUALIFIED INVESTIGATORS LOOK INTO THIS.

<rant over>

And to answer your first question, yes, people with knowledge of who said what about the incident at the time may say more about it to the FBI. Furthermore, the FBI may dig deeper with better expertise to FIND those people.

Or we can throw up our hands and say it's too long ago to figure out, but we'll have a couple of SJC staffers ask around...

Or I could be honest and say I don’t care because I believe the greater good is met by having 6 conservative judges on the SCOTUS and we don’t really have time to do a long drawn out investigation.

I’m sure you thought the same thing when Republicans got all high and mighty about Clinton having sex with interns. I’m also fairly certain you were just as eager to investigate the claims of rape that Bill Clinton committed? But that’s in the past, so let’s deal with now. Keith Ellison still has the support of most democrats, despite much more evidence he is a woman abuser.

I guarantee if the roles were reversed you would be saying the same things any republican here is. You just take issue because it will fundamentally shift the court against your view of the world for perhaps a generation. If the roles were reversed and it was putting a Democratic President appointed liberal would be the 6th liberal vote and who was subsequently accused of being a racist pedophile, I guarantee you would be fine with it.

Or, maybe someone thinks that since they were actually contacted by the FBI they might take my allegations seriously. Instead of coming forward like #3 and being dismissed out of hand?

It really isn't that difficult to see the other side if you try.

Investigation can happen after the fact. If the democrats take the house or eventually the senate, or white house they can do an investigation then if they want. But I suspect they won’t. In fact, I suspect after Thursday or by the latest news this weekend, we’ll move to the next outrage.

Wrong.

I'm not a liberal. And yes, let's investigate Keith Ellison to the full and take the appropriate action.

I have no problem with Gorsuch's appointment, bar the inappropriateness of Garland not receiving an up/down vote. What I want are appropriately qualified and dignified jurists on the SC who will maintain the extreme importance and esteem that these 9 people possess.

I can't believe how partisan people are being over this in supporting this guy, especially when there were far better people on the short list. And it's not just these accusations of. It's how he behaved when trying to destroy the Clinton's, and we still dont know his position/involvement on torture under Bush.

Ok, if you say so, I think a review of your post would prove otherwise. Then again, most liberals think they are open minded and honest brokers too, so there is that.

I’ve already spent too much time arguing with self-righteous people. I’m going go back to listening to Air Supply since it seems like a more productive use of my time.

Have you considered that you are the one that is being partisan on this issue? Because I don't think I am the only conservative person that is open to looking for the truth, or at least to not cram this through quickly.

I campaigned for and voted for 2 Republicans in the last election, so define me as you wish.

Enjoy Air Supply. More of a Doors fan here.