- 26,792
- 38,380
The standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law with due process. The Senate isn’t a court of law so there is no specific burden of proof in a confirmation process. What is disqualifying, credible, ... in a confirmation hearing is up to each individual Senator and can differ greatly. It is part of their constitutional duty to evaluate SC nominees.
I don’t remember such a party happening does not equal saying it didn’t happen. Mark Judge said it didn’t happen. Keyser said she couldn’t remember any such party.
Sessions told the Senate under oath he didn’t recall any contacts he had with any Russians when there were in fact multiple ones with the Russian ambassador of all people.
Kavanaugh raised doubts about his credibility too. Mischaracterized Keyser’s statement, refused a polygraph after previously opining it is essential, evasive answering on simple yes/no questions, ...
Mark Judge word under penalty of felony means little when Grassley’s chief counsel personally conducted the questioning. That individual tweeted and deleted that they were pushing Kavanaugh through unfazed. Mark Judge has nothing to fear about joining a handful of people in the last 70 years who were convicted under that specific penalty with regards to lying to Congress. And probably the most noteable case, a Reagan administration official, had his conviction overturned.
As if Mike Davis would suggest a criminal referral for lying to Congress if Mark Judge were to lie.
Last edited:
)_-
