Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I'm pointing out where your thinking is flawed, a bit scary, and politically detrimental to your "team."
|
He was credibly accused. Having been so, an actual investigation should have ensued. We did not get one. We got a blanket denial from him, along with lying on collateral issues as to his credibility. That's more than enough for a no vote based on the allegations.
But you don't need that either, because his demonstrated temperament and lies to the committee are also more than sufficient reason to vote no.
Weirdly, I do not think having worked for Starr is disqualifying, but hey, each Senator gets to decide, so whatever.
Quote:
|
And once more, if you worked for Starr, I wouldn't even shake your hand.
|
I don't recall for certain whether I shook his hand when I met him, but I'd assume so.
