Quote:
He was credibly accused. Having been so, an actual investigation should have ensued.
|
Agreed.
Agreed.
Quote:
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.
|
Agreed on lies, not on blanket denial. I personally think the denial was a lie. But I'm speculating. I'd want more investigation before I made a decision if I were a senator.
I would not - ever - decide she was entirely truthful and he was not based solely on her testimony. I do not think a credible accusation alone shifts the burden of proof in any forum, including any truly logical person's mind.
You are right to rip the GOP for avoiding a real investigation. You are dead wrong if you believe based on a credible accusation alone, and a blanket denial, a nominee should be dinged. That's dangerous thinking.
Quote:
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.
|
Agreed on lies, not on temperament.
Quote:
Weirdly, I do not think having worked for Starr is disqualifying, but hey, each Senator gets to decide, so whatever.
|
Non-negotiable from my end. Total disqualification. Do not pass go.