# 2018 FBI Background check on Kavanaugh may have been fake **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [March 16, 2021, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-fbi-background-check-on-kavanaugh-may-have-been-fake/938025 "2021-03-16T15:13:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![velcro](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velcro/32/7102_2.png) [@velcro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/velcro)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2021, 11:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-fbi-background-check-on-kavanaugh-may-have-been-fake/938025/141 "2021-05-15T11:48:27Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > But the question then is- and then what? What are we gonna do with that investigation? It depends on the results. If you know what you are going to do after the investigation, there is no need to do the investigation. Obviously. > [@DrDeth](#): > > The FBI was asked to do a extra investigation, and I have not seen anything to be that proves _that was obviously botched_ ? They were given exactly one week. Did you look? I googled “Kavanaugh investigation problems”. First hit. > **[New reporting details how FBI limited investigation of Kavanaugh allegations](https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-09-16/fbi-investigation-brett-kavanaugh-confirmation)** > > As Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh begins his second year on the Supreme Court, new reporting has detailed how the FBI limited in its investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct against him. First two paragraphs. WASHINGTON — > As Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh prepares for his second year on the Supreme Court, new reporting has detailed how the **limits ordered by the White House and Senate Republicans last year constrained the FBI investigation** into allegations of sexual misconduct when he was a college freshman. > > The FBI was informed of allegations that Kavanaugh, while drunk during his freshman year at Yale, exposed himself to two heavily intoxicated female classmates on separate occasions. **The bureau did not interview more than a dozen people who said they could provide information about the incidents.** Amazing how unlikely you are to see any evidence if you don’t look. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![velcro](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velcro/32/7102_2.png) [@velcro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/velcro)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2021, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-fbi-background-check-on-kavanaugh-may-have-been-fake/938025/142 "2021-05-15T11:54:21Z")
Also interesting to note, Kavanaugh recently wrote an opinion upholding the sentence of life in prison without parole for a murder committed by a 15 year old. I understand the difference between 40 year old allegations against Kavanaugh and fresh allegations about a 15 year old murderer. But any excuses for Kavanaugh like “that was a long time ago”, “he was just a kid”, “people can change”, etc. are ringing pretty hollow. ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2021, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-fbi-background-check-on-kavanaugh-may-have-been-fake/938025/143 "2021-05-15T20:51:15Z")
> [@velcro](#): > > The Constitution says Congress charges and then tries an official of the federal government for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” It doesn’t say “during their term”. From a legal stance, would it still be a crime if the statute of limitations has expired, at least as far as impeachment goes? Or is that one of those precedents that the Legislature determines through the course of the impeachment process? I really don’t know. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2021, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-fbi-background-check-on-kavanaugh-may-have-been-fake/938025/144 "2021-05-15T21:06:54Z")
> [@velcro](#): > > It depends on the results. If you know what you are going to do after the investigation, there is no need to do the investigation. Obviously. So we find another witness that says K date raped Ford, 40 years ago. Now what? Again, 40 year old memories are worthless. See, there is nothing that could show up that would make a difference. However, the senate themselves limited the FBI more than anyone else, as they have the FBI exactly one week no more. So, they only interviewed a dozen. And so? How many would be enough? Say they interviewed 1000- and got 1000 worthless memories. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2021, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-fbi-background-check-on-kavanaugh-may-have-been-fake/938025/145 "2021-05-15T21:07:45Z")
It could be, but absent Kavanaugh going postal on TV, the GOP will not vote to remove him, so it is pointless. ---
**Author:** ![gdave](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gdave/32/3683_2.png) [@gdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gdave)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2021, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-fbi-background-check-on-kavanaugh-may-have-been-fake/938025/146 "2021-05-15T21:12:05Z")
> [@Atamasama](#): > > From a legal stance, would it still be a crime if the statute of limitations has expired, at least as far as impeachment goes? Or is that one of those precedents that the Legislature determines through the course of the impeachment process? I really don’t know. From the Wikipedia summary: > [@](#): > > [Article I, Section 2, Clause 5](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_5:_Speaker_and_other_officers;_Impeachment) of the United States Constitution provides: > > > The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment. > > [Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_6:_Trial_of_Impeachment) provide: > > > The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present. Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. > > [Article II, Section 2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_2:_Impeachment) provides: > > > [The President] … shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. > > [Article II, Section 4](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_4:_Impeachment) provides: > > > The [President](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States), [Vice President](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_of_the_United_States) and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, [Treason](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason), [Bribery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bribery), or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.[[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States#cite_note-2) That’s it. No terms are defined. It’s entirely up the House of Representatives as what qualifies as “high crimes and Misdeanors” for purposes of impeachment, and entirely up to the Senate as to what qualifies for purposes of conviction. There’s nothing in the text to prevent impeachment and removal for a past act prior to taking office for which the statute of limitations has expired. Article III, Section 1 does state: > The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. That passage would seem to imply that judges can only be removed for not-good behavior while in office, but it’s not clear from the text or precedent. ---
**Author:** ![velcro](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velcro/32/7102_2.png) [@velcro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/velcro)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2021, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-fbi-background-check-on-kavanaugh-may-have-been-fake/938025/147 "2021-05-16T01:50:51Z")
> [@Atamasama](#): > > From a legal stance, would it still be a crime if the statute of limitations has expired, at least as far as impeachment goes? Or is that one of those precedents that the Legislature determines through the course of the impeachment process? I High Crimes are not the same as regular crimes. Effectively, they are whatever Congress says they are. The commonly accepted definition is abuse of power, or corrupt acts such as lying under oath. ---
**Author:** ![velcro](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velcro/32/7102_2.png) [@velcro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/velcro)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2021, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-fbi-background-check-on-kavanaugh-may-have-been-fake/938025/148 "2021-05-16T01:55:12Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > So we find another witness that says K date raped Ford, 40 years ago. Now what? Again, 40 year old memories are worthless. > > See, there is nothing that could show up that would make a difference. > > However, the senate themselves limited the FBI more than anyone else, as they have the FBI exactly one week no more. > > So, they only interviewed a dozen. And so? How many would be enough? Say they interviewed 1000- and got 1000 worthless memories. It is entirely possible that one or more of the dozens of witnesses that were ignored has some evidence besides memories that you, as prosecutor, judge, and jury have already decided are worthless. If, for example, such evidence proved that Kavanaugh lied under oath during his hearings, that is impeachable. Or maybe there is another incident that has not been brought to light. I am not proposing this as a solution, only pointing out the fault in your argument. The point is, you don’t know if you don’t look. And again, this is not advocating for opening a brand new investigation of everyone ever confirmed. This is completing an investigation that was legitimately requested but not legitimately completed. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2021, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-fbi-background-check-on-kavanaugh-may-have-been-fake/938025/149 "2021-05-16T03:15:14Z")
> [@velcro](#): > > If, for example, such evidence proved that Kavanaugh lied under oath during his hearings, that is impeachable. It is not really. Will ten GOP senators vote to remove? No. > [@velcro](#): > > This is completing an investigation that was legitimately requested but not legitimately completed. Which had a specific time limit of one week. ---
**Author:** ![velcro](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velcro/32/7102_2.png) [@velcro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/velcro)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2021, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-fbi-background-check-on-kavanaugh-may-have-been-fake/938025/150 "2021-05-16T13:12:20Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > > [@velcro](#): > > > > If, for example, such evidence proved that Kavanaugh lied under oath during his hearings, that is impeachable. > > It is not really. Will ten GOP senators vote to remove? No. Irrelevant, as addressed above at length. > [@DrDeth](#): > > > [@velcro](#): > > > > This is completing an investigation that was legitimately requested but not legitimately completed. > > Which had a specific time limit of one week. Again, irrelevant what the time limit was, if obvious leads were ignored. My point is that the “right” thing to do when a legitimate investigation is not done properly is to do it properly. All the externalities are irrelevant - whether the “jury” is corrupt, whether the artificial/corrupt restrictions were observed, whether we know ahead of time what we will do with the as-of-now unknown and unknowable results of the completed investigation. You can keep coming up with weak reasons why stonewalling a legitimate investigation of a powerful person is just fine-dandy. I will not be participating. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-fbi-background-check-on-kavanaugh-may-have-been-fake/938025.md?page=7)