Yes it's reasonable to seek out more evidence.
But the republicans did not. The committee refused to call additional witnesses to back up either side, and the FBI investigation was hampered at the start (with limits on who could be interviewed) and even now there are multiple people who wanted to talk to the FBI but were turned away.
They had sworn testimony from multiple other sources.
Which of course does not mean that a complete investigation has been done, since there are people who have tried to contact the FBI with relevant information but were not questioned. Nor does that 'sworn testimony' indicate whether the people who supposedly had submitted sworn testimony had been properly interviewed by the FBI.
Heck, we saw one person... Renate Dolphin, who originally supported Kavanaugh until she found out about the whole 'Renate Alumnus' thing. I rather suspect that much of that former 'sworn testimony' would be similarly overturned.
But hey, you got a rapist on the supreme court. You should be proud of yourself!
Other than the TV spectacle it would provide, what advantage do you honestly think having them testify in person would provide?
The fact that their testimony could be cross-examined and looked for inconsistencies. The fact that people doing the cross examination could actually ask questions that might have been relevant that were not addressed in their testimony.
At the very least, even if the rape apologists on the justice committee didn't want to make it a 'TV spectacle', they could have gotten the FBI to talk to
everyone who could have shed light on Kavanaugh's history at the time, in private. But of course that didn't happen did it. Instead we got limitations by the white house about who should be investigated and a bunch of people who wanted to talk to the FBI but were never interviewed.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v..._do_stuff_he_said_under_oath_he_didnt_do.html
And the Republicans asked for Ford's full therapist notes, which she refused. So you can't honestly claim one side was for full disclosure and one side was trying to cover everything up.
And once again... she was willing to provide them to the FBI had she been interviewed. Given the fact that the Republicans in congress are pretty much rape-apologists, I can certainly understand Ford being hesitant to have personal details made available to individuals hostile to the truth and willing to engage in all sorts of dirty tricks. Under the same situation, I'd prefer to deal only with a neutral 3rd party such as the FBI.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...r-fbi-will-receive-therapy-notes-if-it-agrees
But hey, you got a rapist appointed to the supreme court! Wear that with pride!
Given that there's basically nothing for them to investigate (no date, no location, no witnesses), I'm not sure why you think this means anything.
Except of course there's plenty to investigate.
Kavanaugh's testimony regarding his actions when he was a student could be examined for accuracy, which would go a long way to establish whether he was credible or not. (If you interview his former classmates who contradict him on what a "Renate Alumnus" was, or his "devil's triangle", then his credibility as a whole takes a big hit.)
You can investigate the houses that the individuals named at the party lived at to establish if any of them match the description as provided by Ford.
You can interview others who may have been in the same social circles to see if the other claims have validity
We didn't get that though did we. Instead we got a big whitewash from the republicans, and a probable rapist and perjurer on the supreme court. Enjoy your victory.
The age of American exceptionalism is over.
