Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski
Are you (or Ty) saying he should go down over this without some investigation of her claim? That seems really bad precedent given the style of opposition that has existed to every nominee that might change the make up for some time now. I get there may be other reasons people oppose him, but on this one thing, however blunt our instruments might be for investigating, I think it has to happen? i mean you aren't suggesting a pass?
|
I don't think anyone has asserted that any nominee should go down simply because an accusation is made. That's obviously an imbecilic and dangerous policy.
I think the policy advocated is that where an accusation is made, there should be some investigation and the accuser should be put to his or her proofs in a forum allowing some form of direct and cross examination, but not a hearing where a bunch of Senators can merely grandstand and make closing arguments for TV at the accuser and accused, rather than ask questions intended to get to the actual truth, or lack of truth, in the allegation.
How do you do that? I think allowing counsel for the accused and accuser to engage in a short hearing before a circuit court judge in which they follow the rules of evidence and federal trial procedure. The accused and accuser both get to testify and the video and transcript are then given to both the Senate and media. That's the only fair method, unfortunately. Doing it before the Senate is a waste of time, political shitshow. Those idiots aren't intellectually fit or unbiased enough to hear such a matter.
