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.
Did you look? I googled “Kavanaugh investigation problems”.
First hit.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
