#42 - I watched it, dummy.
I haven't heard anything from anyone else on it, and I haven't watched any news. That is what I saw. He was pathetic at the end of the hearings.

Unproven?

BWHAHHAAAAAHAAAAAHHHHAAAAAA!!!!

Better to have everyone see the end of it. Lewandowski didn't fare well at all.
He got his ass handed to him and looked like an absolute scum bag.

#213 - you don't need me to do that, but I'll have your back on that, Jeff :)

The whole debacle was brought on by Moscow Mitch and Merrick Garland.

Got it, Avigdore, however who is talking about a criminal case?
This is all about Kav being impeached.
is separate from any criminal proceding.
Impeachment is the core point of the article.

you're? Bleh. Your.

I hate when I do that, too. :)

This is impeachment, not a trial with a criminal finding.
It's not my point.
You're confusing a political system with the legal system, and putting constraints on it as a result.
I'm not unsympathetic to your wish, I'm just stating that the impeachment of a Judge, like the impeachment of a President is not constrained the way you wish it was.

Everything Avigdore said was correct.

No, Jeff. It wasn't. That's ridiculous and a premise you hold on to to rationalize this mess.

This is what Trump and the GOP wrought. You didn't allow Garland any time, at all, and you did everything you could to short-circuit the FBI investigation. Now you have another Supreme Court Justice with an asterisk by his name.

The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt.

Wrong.

The decision makers gathered as much information as they felt they needed to reach their decision about Kavanaugh getting a job.

Wrong. Again.

He got the job.

Correct.

#160 - is that the series where he finally opts out for "whatever's on the chart" - which then, when pressed, he agrees that it's the "legal limit" - or was that under Harris he did that? That was so against what he'd said earlier about his drinking. I remember it and thinking "he just ontradicted himsel. That guy's lying!"

#158 -
So close. Ignoratio elenchi.

#147 - all you do is lie, so being a massive hypocrite and directly going against what you said in #145 doesn't surprise me, Ira.

We're done, by the way. You've shown yourself to be a joke. G'night.

#145 -
Go to what was said that I responded to, then figure it out. If you can.
That way you might not look like that idiot that posted #142.

What he can't do is lie during the hearing - that's a felony.

#138 - I've posted this many times before.
This was NOT a criminal hearing.
This was NOT a civil law hearing.
This was an interview for a lifetime position on the highest Court of the land.
There is no determination of guilt or innocence that would result in a penalty, other than not getting the job.
There is no requirement of "innocent until proven guilt."

The only time your proposition has any weight is if those that are doing the deciding wish to use as a criteria. There is no legal constraint since this isn't a legal proceeding.

#137 - and he proved that in the hearing. The most unfit candidate based on his theatrics and arrogance I've ever seen nominated for the Supreme Court of the United States.

#135 - that's absolutely not true and a conflation of terms and processes that are unrelated.

How many times does it have to be explained?

Yet it has been successful in every country it's been enacted.

Yep.
You're that stupid.
Glad we settled that.

#324 - Obviously trolling, no one's that stupid.

Why do you have distrust Univision polls?