NO.
Did the WH and/or Republican senators insist on a full investigation of Kavanaugh’s past?
NO.
Were all of the witnesses to Kavanaugh’s excessive drinking during the time Christine Ford alleges he attacked her while drunk contacted and interviewed?
NO.
Were FBI investigators told to follow all leads in an attempt to get at the truth of the allegations against Kavanaugh?
NO.
Did Republicans put partisanship aside in order to search for the truth behind Christine Ford’s allegations before elevating Kavanaugh to the highest court in the land?
NO.
Were the Republicans even remotely interested in knowing whether their nominee to the SCOTUS might be guilty of the behaviour he has been accused of?
NO.
Were the Republicans willing to have Kavanaugh take a polygraph test that might tend to prove his innocence?
NO.
Were the Republicans anxious to leave no stone unturned in order to prove that Kavanaugh has been wrongfully accused?
NO.
Has Kavanaugh himself demonstrated any willingness to be subjected to a full investigation into his past?
NO.
Did Kavanaugh answer specific questions posed by Democrats without being evasive, and proffering unresponsive, self-serving answers to all questions asked?
NO.
How many “NO” answers does it take to spell “guilty as charged” – or, at the very least, an admission that “we don’t care if he’s guilty, as long as he’s confirmed to the highest court in the land”?
When you refuse a full investigation into your own past that might exonerate you, you are broadcasting your own guilt.
When your party refuses a full investigation into their SCOTUS nominee’s past, they are broadcasting that nominee’s probable guilt.
Sometimes it’s just that simple. Sometimes it’s just that in-your-face obvious.
Sometimes it just comes down to whether you’re unethical enough, immoral enough, and unpatriotic enough to take NO as an appropriate answer.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Response to NanceGreggs (Original post)
