I disagree with that. It is not a side show. Admittedly, there is almost
nothing to investigate, and as I understand it, Feinstein referred it to the FBI for investigation, and given the statute of limitations, they declined. They did however add her letter to the background check file.
Because testimony all by itself is valid evidence. Perhaps not conclusive (in this case, very unlikely to be IMO). At this point, given the gravity of the appointment we're talking about, I can't see how anyone would be comfortable not allowing her to speak. What's the harm? A week or two delay? On a lifetime appointment? Who cares? When the Senate advises and consents, there should be as close to complete consensus as possible that everything relevant was examined. If she were blocked, no dems would think that, and a number of repubs would be with the dems.
Delaying a year in 2016 did not seem to bother repubs. Delaying a week or two now to hear the testimony of someone making these serious accusations is suddenly a partisan sideshow?
Fortunately, this seems to be a rare moment of bipartisanship.
|
(
In response to this post by Cold Hoober Hoo)
Posted: 09/18/2018 at 1:05PM