*sigh* He hasn't yet been accused of rape.

She was open to other sources of facts. The president, Kavanaugh, and the right were unwilling to face facts.

LOL, no they looked though the facts and even give extensions several times for get to the bottom of the accusations and for an FBI investigation. The facts did not bear any evidence that Kavanaugh did anything wrong, without regard for you subjective opinion on the matter.

Nice bubble you've got there. Asking the senate majority to set FBI investigation parameters is like asking a parent to set limits of investigating their child.

Occurring to the FBI they did a standard investigation. But a nice attack on me, Congress, and the FBI. Also notice how the detail on those parameters are left out and you got who set them wrong. https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/04/politics/fbi-investigation-parameters-kavanaugh/index.html

Jeff Flake and other undecided republicans. I was repeating what trump said on national TV. Not really an attack on the FBI. They're given a job, they do it.

Wow, you moved that goal post again. You did attack the FBI by claiming they didn't do a good job investigating (which is not just repeating what Trump said) and you still have the person(s) that set the parameters wrong and ignored what they actually are. The Senate is a separate branch of government and have no control over the FBI investigation. It is the White House Consuls Office that set the limits on the investigation none of which should have impeded their ability to do a though job.

When you take a test, how many questions do you answer that aren't on the test? The FBI would have followed the guidance which they were given. Nothing unprofessional there, no dig. trump said that the FBI should investigate whatever the Republican majority in the senate says they should. So, when trump wants the senate to set parameters for the investigation, the senate can make the parameters and send them to the White House Council's Office and they give it to the FBI. It must be minutia to consider who actually handed instructions to the FBI when the White House said the senate will set parameters.
I'd like you to explain the goalpost metaphor. What qualified as "moving the goalpost"?

"moving the goalpost" is a fallacy not a metaphor. basically when set conditions for an argument are met the conditions are made more stringent and then it is pretended the original condition where not met. Like say " senate majority" to "Jeff Flake and other undecided republicans".

And yes you attacked the FBI by insinuating that the investigation was a sham without regard to the scope set.

And it is the White House that set the scope and being pedantical doesn't change that, http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-fbi-chief-chris-wray-defends-kavanaugh-investigation-20181010-story.html

I read the page from the link you posted. trump said "republican majority in the senate", the link you posted led to "jeff Flake and other undecided republicans". The "moved goalposts" is what you gave to me.

I cannot reply to the last comment so I'm replying to this one, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/us/politics/trump-fbi-kavanaugh.html

It took me a while to find the actual limits on the scope as no one wants to actually mention them in the news. basically the limits set where the assault accusation and time set by the White House. As such the scope should have not limited the FBI's ability to find the truth of the matter showing why attacking who you believe set the limits over the actual limits is a deeply flawed argument.