Whether it’s “credible” or not is your opinion.
The purpose of the FBI in Supreme Court nomination hearings is to do background checks. By your own admission, they are no longer needed.
Thank you for cleaning that up. That form of commentary is not needed from either side of the political spectrum.
did you just edit my post?
Definitely on his game today! I’ve watched posts appear and disappear right before my eyes. 
I’m glad belligerence isn’t tolerated from anyone.
Heck if she had pressed charges 36 years ago it is quite possible that the prosecutors office may not have even taken this case.
I wouldn’t call that “belligerence.”
ok…
I’m not sure which post @Steel-WOLF is talking about, but I saw one from Guyman that was pretty nasty.
Toxicity?
10 char
The point is that the credibility of this claim is very questionable especially when there is no physical evidence.
I think he meant to quote you, I deleted his rebutal from your post.
There was no physical evidence during the Clarence Thomas hearings.
Word in the media is that he was quite an alcoholic. Maybe there are some other things he is afraid he might be asked about.
Or maybe he just doesn’t see any point in going before the country and saying he wasn’t involved in this.
Yep. And Clarence Thomas is still on the Court last I heard.
I hope I didn’t hit the wrong button. SHould have been a reply.
I hate mornings.
1 Like
Still its best to look for evidence and interview potential witnesses as soon as possible. Preferably within the first 30 years or so.
Thanks…
It would certainly be in his best interest NOT to testify. Whether he sees a point in it or not is irrelevant.
