Hi Jim, thanks for the comment.
I think the argument of the FBI was that he had already been investigated on numerous occasions, Dr Ford’s testimony was already detailed and in the public domain, he had already been investigated before each promotion and even during this process he had been subject to further background checks. The investigation which, you rightly point out, was more of a window dressing exercise was actually a supplement to the already completed investigation and then merged into a 1000-page (? could be wrong there) report. As I understand it, just last week there was a further report released by the confirmation committee where they had taken witness statements (40+?) from those Dr Ford said could corroborate her story and yet have concluded they contradict it (we already know Dr Ford’s “best friend” said that although she believed Dr Ford, she had no recollection of the incident or the party). The quietness with which this report has been released (no minority report contradicting it) and the greater quietness with how it has been received speaks volumes one suspects.
I take your point that this was a quasi-judicial process, it was not a courtroom where he was being judged and could end up in jail, but it was nevertheless expected that the process should be fair and just. Someone accusing another person of something that rests on seemingly a desperately poor evidential base, particularly when the allegation was well known to Senator Feinstein and she had already advised Dr Ford regarding it, as well as the other germane aspects such as the excessive number of written questions, the comparison with the Gorsuch confirmation process, all seem to suggest to me this was a politically motivated slur.
A further discussion has been had that if it had been one of the female nominees that eventually went forward, the assault would have focused on their catholic faith or “dogma” as Senator Feinstein noted. We would have had Roe vs Wade all over the news regardless of the fact that even if Roe vs Wade was repealed, it would just return policy to the individual states (probably where it should be if it is democracy we are interested in) and not open the door to coat-hanger abortions. I think the ugliness of this process reflected what was perceived as the “high stakes” in the broader political sense for the Democrats rather than any real concern over Kavanaugh’s fitness for the court or the wider concerns about abuse of women which I absolutely and categorically support.
As I noted, I am not an American and do not think God is necessarily a member of the Republican party, one of the few bipartisan events in Congress I believe is a prayer meeting of those who are more than nominal “Christians”. I was just genuinely shocked at the incivility of the process in the world’s most famous democracy and how it almost succeeded in preventing a judge with a long and distinguished career (what also seems to have been forgotten) from serving on the court on the basis of an accusation.