You can't say "the fact remains" because no one has seen the report! Only if and when this gets released can you make definitive statements.

Don't need to see the report to know who wasn't interviewed.

Yes, but you do need to see the report to be able to judge if they interviewed a "fair number of people". They may have had their reasons for not interviewing certain people but we can't know without reading the report. I can imagine the main reason being that for every person stepping forward to say they remember seeing Kavanaugh drunk (Democrat voter), there'll be someone else stepping forward to say he wasn't (Republican voter). And this is the problem, this whole story is too political, too long ago and there is zero way of proving it.

How would you know that without a full investigation. Be consistent.

What's that groundskeeper? As I already said, this wasn't a criminal investigation, but a background check. Do keep up.

The whole thing was/is a sham. Mike Judge should have been questioned under oath - but he's had cancer in the past so therefore is unable to appear in public?

Or a an incredibly limited, small part of his background check. Do keep up.

He was interviewing for the Supreme Court, not McDonald's.

As I already mentioned, this was the sixth FBI background investigation of Kavanaugh since 1993. You're making this too easy for me.

Try as I might, apparently I cannot make it easy enough for you.

How many of the people who made their FIRST accusation against him in 2018 made accusations that could have been investigated prior to 2018?

I've even helped you out by making the question rhetorical. Easy enough?

WTF? He should never even have been a nominee if he'd been the subject of ONE investigation, never mind six.
Background check is one thing but an investigation?? And SIX of them?

You know what a background check is, right? Let me help.

Background check

I'm afraid you've tangled yourself in your own semantics. I'll prolong your wriggling...

Was it compiling criminal records (a background check) or was it interviewing people to determine if any wrongdoing had occurred (an investigation)?

Is that the same as the "Background investigation" you wrote, though?

At Supreme Court level, an investigation is a lot more telling than a simple "check".

If you read back, you'll see it's actually you playing semantics, something that you and marton enjoy making a habit of on here. The answer is actually in the first line of the Wikipedia link I posted. As it was the FBI doing the background check/investigation, one would imagine that they're pretty thorough.

So a police force can form a reason for not interviewing a witness without actually interviewing the witness and knowing what evidence they have?
What a revelation!

With such prophesying capabilities the US can save billions on police work.

Come on, admit the whole check was a farce and cover up. Stop dragging up specious arguments!

"imagine"! LOL!

I will try to imagine this

From your own link:

A background check or background investigation is the process of looking up and compiling criminal records, commercial records, and financial records of an individual or an organization.

Interviewing people doesn't seem to be a part of any of that, so would you like to revise your answer? Take your time.

Is it a full moon? You're beginning to sound hysterical. I'll repeat, provide some evidence that it was a cover up. Time taken, number of people interviewed is conjecture without the report.

I kind of lost track of what you folks are actually arguing about and it's not important to me.
But when I read the sentence in wikipedia, which is quoted above it became very clear, that the FBI-whatever was only looking into things already recorded somewhere. As they've done this (several times?) before, it would only have been embarrassing for them to find something new, no? As it would mean they missed something before.

What ever allegations came up now would not be part of such an FBI-whatever as they are obviously not recorded yet (and none of the accusers claimed they were, did they?).

So with my European legal understanding (which most likely differs very, very much with US-legal understanding) this FBI-whatever was basically a farce - or at least a waste of time - no further old records would (should) be found.

The new allegations need a charge/trial/verdict and should not be talked about in other circles. Why a bunch of politicians questions the participants and on youtube for the entire world to watch, I shall never understand.

It does make one wonder though, what the US needs a supreme court of justice for as they took these things back to the village square.

__________________
It's all a matter or perspective.
So move your butt and look at it from the other side

Because that's where the voters are.