Just makes my original point seem more likely TBH. FBI are pretty thorough in uncovering dirt. Remember who the FBI director was around the time Kavanaugh was appointed? I'll give you a hint: the word "Mueller" is in there. It doesn't matter if someone comes out publicly or not. If these parties were so well known (rape trains, etc.) doesn't make sense that nobody who knew him personally wouldn't have alluded to it in previous investigations.

So many words. So much hot air. There is literally nothing to back up anything you just said. It's all assumption. At least Chula is doing some research.

So do the FBI suck at doing background checks or no? Make up your mind.

Here's a hard fact for you: he's been investigated SIX times between 1993 and 2018, all of which are considered to be "full-field" investigations that dive deeply into a candidate's background. What Chula said literally means nothing in the face of how thorough these guys can be.

You seem to be implying that the FBI MUST have known about various rapes from up and coming political figures while they were in college even though nobody reported them. I mean. They're the FBI right? They know EVERYTHING.

Whether something is reported publicly means nothing in the face of a background investigation. The FBI have repeatedly talked to people with multiple degrees of separation from Kavanaugh, including former colleagues, schoolmates, etc. on six past occasions, with the goal being to determine if he met the standards for hiring for whatever position he was gunning for at the time.

The point isn't that FBI "know everything11". The point is that they've already gone through this process multiple times in the past with a similar premise, i.e. can we find dirt on this person who is applying for a highly visible federal position. And yet they couldn't find a single person between 1993 and 2018 that mentions a rape train, groping, whatever.

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/LameKlutzy...restricted.gif

The **** do you know about law enforcement investigations?

I know enough to factor it into my position. I could throw up thirty or forty links probably, but there's plenty of information out there on what gets covered in an FBI "full-field" investigation.

https://www.ned.uscourts.gov/interne...ons_Policy.pdf

Some good comments here too - https://www.reddit.com/r/AskLE/comme...t_a_fullfield/

And that doesn't even cover what they cross-reference in their interviews with what you have to fill out here.

https://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf86.pdf

The FBI doesn't cast a big net over your entire life.
If you're being considered for a federal job that includes a judicial position,
these guys go to your professional connections. The FBI agents interview a
minimum of 30 people that are or have been connected to you professionally
over the years: lawyers that you've worked with, people in law enforcement,
judges, etc. If these people that you've worked with offer any other names that
they think the FBI should pursue, then they will. If old drinking buddies aren't mentioned, well...
Yes, neighbors and family are contacted too.

It was noted last night by an ex-FBI investigator that during a standard background check they do not go back further than 18 years old. Ant, you against the re-opening of the investigation based on the new allegations? You sure sound like you are. If so, why?

Like I said, you truly sound like a closeted GOP fan.

Yes, please come out so we can stone you for the apostate you are.