(09-28-2018 01:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 01:11 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 11:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 10:59 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 09:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Per CNN, the ABA has sent a letter encouraging the Senate to request an FBI investigation into the Kavanaugh accusations.


https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/09/27/polit...index.html

The ABA is an organization that performs objective functions such as rating jurist qualifications, and I do believe it largely keeps political hackery out of that function, but it also engages in political advocacy -- and when it does, it is undeniably left-leaning. Calling for "a full FBI investigation" now is a transparently, 100% political act. There already has been an investigation, in full view of the nation for weeks, with no expense spared and with no rocks left unturned. There are no facts left to uncover. The only purpose of further (pointless) investigation is to stall for time. It is not a search for truth. Just be honest about that, please.

With respect to the Ford accusations, has Judge, the other person accused of being present during the assault, been interviewed?

I agree that the Senate hearing was not a search for the truth, by either side. But do you actually believe there has been a legitimate investigation into the allegations?

I believe (although I'm open to correction) that Judge has been interviewed in the sense that Senate investigators have met with him and posed questions to him at some point (possibly multiple points) over the past 3 weeks. I think I can concede that those investigators were not wearing FBI badges at the time, but it is a federal crime to lie to Congressional investigators just like it is to lie to the FBI (18 USC 1001©(2)). I would imagine that he was also talked to previously by the FBI itself (or its subcontractor) as part of Kavanaugh's FBI background investigations (6 of them) throughout his career, although admittedly not directly about the burning issue of Ford's allegations. And, of course, he has also given at least two written statements, and not just mere letters, but statements under penalty of perjury. The only thing to my knowledge he's not been open to doing voluntarily is testifying or speaking *in public*. So even a vaunted FBI investigation could only get out of him that which he has already given - multiple times.

Yes, I think this matter has been honestly investigated. I don't think it can reasonably be contended otherwise. Good lord, this has been the complete opposite of a rush-job sham conducted in secret. Conservatives like me certainly have our qualms about the unfairness and ugliness of it all, but one thing that's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt is that we live in a riotously open democracy, and with a completely unfettered free press to boot. It's been investigated to the proverbial hilt. Questions have been asked in public or in private of all possible witnesses, not only by people with badges but also by people with press passes who would want nothing more in life than to stop this nomination, which is to say quite a few of them. No brighter spotlight can be shown at this point. There are no rocks left to turn over. The facts are what they are, and yep, they're incomplete, but they're not going to get any completer.

Honestly, try to imagine some poor schlub at the FBI now being told "go investigate this." Would you not think to yourself, "What could I possibly do that hasn't already been done?" I do know what the end result of any such investigation would be, though. It would be a report that lays out all the same incomplete facts we know right now, and then says "draw your own conclusions" at the bottom. The Democrats know this, too. They just want that process to take no less than 40 days.

I don't believe Judge has been questioned as mentioned, except maybe as part of the background investigation. However, if he had been questioned privately about these allegations, then I would change my stance and agree that an investigation has been completed.

I do not think having Judge appear in a public hearing is necessary, I just think that, at this point, having him answer questions from trained professionals is warranted. I've not seen an article that says he has done this - but similar to your preface, I could be wrong.

It may be that when investigators reached out to him to question him, he essentially said (through a lawyer) "I'll write you out a sworn statement instead" -- and he did (twice now). No professional investigator would turn that down, because you've gotten the witness to commit to a story when he had every right not to even talk to you in the first place. That's the problem with insisting that only live (even if private) questioning of Judge will put this matter to rest, because he can't be compelled to sit for it. But far from clamming up, he's given the next best thing, which could also be called the best realistic thing given that the *ideal* thing (for you) cannot be compelled.

His statements to date could be lies, sure, but surely you are not suggesting that they should reasonably be inferred, in the court of public opinion, to be lies if he essentially chooses to stand on them from here on out?