I'm confused

[Happy Monkey]

The Republicans insisted on this being a he-said-she-said, refusing any investigation and refusing to call additional witnesses, so credibility is paramount. In that context, the importance of lies is vastly magnified.


Is it credible that a teenage boy is asking whether one of his friends has farted yet? When the common meaning for the term in question is something that teenage boys may dare each other to do?


He could have said that all the booze and sex references in his yearbook were teenage bluster. It would have meshed with his "I was outwardly embarrassed about being a virgin but inwardly proud" line.


About impeachment; it should have a much higher bar than a confirmation hearing. In Clinton's case, it didn't, and Brett Kavanaugh had a hand in that so he can hardly complain. If some of the other women's accusations against Clinton had borne out (and maybe some should have. Ken Starr certainly tried and failed, and I have a somewhat higher trust for negative results from hostile prosecutors than other combinations, but that's tempered by a general difficulty for accusations of this sort to get traction), then those would have justified it. As it is, he was impeached but not convicted, which was embarrassing for him, but mattered not a whit to his presidential power.


So I find it a bit disingenuous to respond to "lifetime appointment" with "he can be impeached". What does it matter if he's impeached? Do you think they'll come up with 67 Senators to convict him?