Also conveniently ignored/missed that bottom paragraph I quoted in red and bold debunking theFBI background checks
LOL - so FBI background checks are now not good enough.
Have you told them? 
So we come back to the claim that 6 background checks by the FBI failed to spotthat this guy was a serial rapist.
Away with the fairies 
Were those checks carried out before his accuser had gone public? I’m not sure what the background checks would have found out about the accusation that hadn’t happened?
So that other thread was just about Kavanaugh then and you don't give a flying about other false accusers punishment or their victimsand just this one ?
What is it with you lot as even in victory you cling onto that hate, feed off it and lust for more. It must pain you not being able to say on here what you really feel about it on here?
All you had to do was ask for this one to be re-opened...
It's pretty obvious you are simply trolling for effect, but for anyone naive or confused by your argument:
There are different levels of checks and investigations ranging in depth and quality provided not just by the FBI, but by most agencies, organisations and businesses.
The first initial factor effecting the level of an investigation or check is defined by how the significance or importance of the check/investigation is categorised.
The more significance given to the category of check/investigation, the more resources and thoroughness will be applied.
The theft of someones bicycle will not warrant the same amount of resources and thoroughness that a bank robbery or murder does.
Just as when buying a house, you can have the initial survey or pay for a far more in depth inspection.
The second factor effecting the level of an investigation or check is defined by the decisions of what is expected and acceptable for the category range in terms of value for money, likelyhood of results etc.
In simple terms, what are the odds of success and realistic expectations - and what resources do we need or should assign to at least achieve those realistic expectations ?
Background checks are categorised as low importance by default and have limited resources and depth applied to them.
In the Kavanaugh case, the committee and the White House dictated that although the allegations of sexual assault had been made, the priority and depth of investigation should be limited both in time and resources to that of the initial background checks.
It would not be that dissimilar to someone being investigated over the theft of a bicycle having someone come forwards with claims they were involved in bank robbery, but the powers that be deciding to limit the investigation of the bank robbery claims to the resources, depth and effort of the initial bicycle theft inquiry.
Or your initial basic survey found no problems with the house you intend to buy and even though your neighbor has said there was a large crack in the foundations and potentially asbestos in the walls, you still stick to the basic survey because either you don't want to spend the extra money ... or don't really want to hear that your potential dream new home is a potential death trap and money pit.
Well we had 4 accusations in total and the FBI couldn't find any evidence to support any of them.
Heres a thought - perhaps they never happened! 