Why people also feel like the investigation was not going to be too impactful was because of the limited number of witnesses that were actually interviewed. Out of at least 25+ possible witnesses who could speak to the sexual assault allegations, only 9 were interviewed. Since this wasn't a criminal investigation, the FBI was not allowed to issue subpoenas, also known as forcing anyone to talk to them if they didn't want to. This proceeds to show how limited this investigation was. A theory sprouted about the reason why the FBI investigation was so limited in interviewing witnesses, limited on time, and limited on gathering evidence was to "provide a cover for a vote for Kavanaugh."
Do you feel like it was fair to put a limited time frame on these types of cases? How do you think people are going to see our justice system now?
I feel as though America in a way has gone backwards in terms of progress as many people that has recieved acceptance may have rules prohibiting it in the future.
ReplyDeleteThese types of investigations need to be thorough, because Kavanaugh is asking for a lifetime appointment as a moral authority. Not only that, but given the context and the allegations against him, he may very well be unfit for the job, and there are plenty more qualified people to take his place. In my opinion, there is no drawback to a full on investigation with unlimited resources.
ReplyDeleteNo I don't think it was fair to set up a half investigation to just please the people but with no intent of finding anything. In terms of the justice system, I believe that people's trust has been already declining and this is just another incident that reinforces that.
ReplyDeleteI think this is ironic because if Justice Kavanugh is not guilty then why would Trump has to put out so many limitations on the investigation
ReplyDeleteI feel that it is not fair to put such a limited time frame on these types of cases, especially in this case where so many people are involved and may need time to process something of such significance. People might view our justice system as rushed and not thorough, even secretive and narrow. I recall seeing a senator (don't remember who) call it a "BS investigation".
ReplyDeleteNo, it is not fair to put limits on investigations especially if it is for putting in a Supreme Court Justice. Also, I feel as if the elevator attack was not a valid enough excuse to speed up the investigation. The people will most likely trust the justice system and the government in general. -Naomi, Block 5
ReplyDeleteNo, it is not fair to put limits on investigations especially if it is for putting in a Supreme Court Justice. Also, I feel as if the elevator attack was not a valid enough excuse to speed up the investigation. The people will most likely trust the justice system and the government in general. -Naomi, Block 5
ReplyDeletePersonally, I find it unfair that there was a time limit put on the FBI investigation. A week is rarely enough time to come to any conclusion during an investigation. Additionally, it is quite suspicious that the investigation was limited to a week without subpoenas. I am sure that people will now see our justice system cynically.
ReplyDeleteI believe in the theory that Kavanaugh was nominated by President Trump in part due to his views on impeachment. I suspect Trump knows the pending investigation into Russian collusion and other litigation, and will rely on Kavanaugh for impeachment processes.
ReplyDeleteThis plays into the limited time frame on the FBI investigation and is further supported by President Trump's recent comments on how he did not care if the sexual allegations were true. As such, with less time to conduct a full investigation and even less conclusive results, there is no doubt in my mind that the FBI investigation was deliberately limited in part of a larger plan. This, in my mind, is unfair because of the conflict of interest between the nominator and the nominee - Trump and Kavanaugh.
Personally, people will be more aware of how the justice system can go awry, and will be even more encouraged to vote because of this Kavanaugh controversy. All in all, although I believe it to be unfair, this will likely result in more awareness and increased participation in our democracy: something we need today.
Steven Gong
I think the investigation should have been more thoroughly conducted. Although I understand that the swift nomination of a Supreme Court Justice is important, it is also extremely important that we nominate well qualified people.
ReplyDeleteThe limited investigation of Kavanaugh shouldn't have had such a short time frame. If there had been a longer investigation that was more thorough, there might have been some piece of evidence that would affect whether Kavanaugh would be a SC justice. Our justice system would be viewed poorly.
ReplyDeleteI feel like the investigation was ordered only to appease the public and convince everyone that this was not another sexual assault case merely brushed aside. However I do not think this investigation is in any way sufficient or productive.
ReplyDelete