MORE: Sen. Dianne Feinstein: "In my view, from what I saw, the investigation was very limited." http://abcn.ws/2O1B5xQ pic.twitter.com/NkFWHPQP7g
-
-
Show this thread
-
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer on FBI report into sexual misconduct allegations against Brett Kavanaugh: "I disagree with Senator Grassley's statement that there was 'no hint of misconduct.'" http://abcn.ws/2O1B5xQ pic.twitter.com/AMBIhAiR8z
Show this thread -
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer: "We are reiterating our call to make the directive that the White House and Counsel McGahn sent to the FBI public because we believe it greatly constrained the investigation from the get-go." http://abcn.ws/2O1B5xQ pic.twitter.com/AGHNsKoCdb
Show this thread -
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Kavanaugh: "For goodness sake, this is the United States of America! Nobody is supposed to be guilty until proven innocent in this country." "The Senate should not set a fundamentally un-American precedent here." http://abcn.ws/2O1B5xQ pic.twitter.com/GnIsQN23fv
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
They both gave full statements under oath and were questioned by the Committee. They can supplement their statements at any time without the FBI. If the ranking member had questions for either, perhaps she should have asked them at the hearing...either of them.
-
Swetnik was never interviewed either. Neither were about 40 witnesses. This whole thing was a sham, not a real investigation.
-
Any single one of those "potential" witnesses can give their statements to the Committee at literally any time. They can do it right now. This very second. They could have done it two weeks ago, too. Or any time in between.
-
The FBI does not draw conclusions. It gathers information and gives it to the Senate so that it can advise and consent (i.e., draw conclusions). If anyone has relevant information, it is their civic duty to share it regardless of whether the FBI asks for their statement.
-
Then the FBI should have accepted the information that people were reaching out to supply them with. Instead they turned them away because the white house deliberately restricted them. There's no reason to rush this confirmation process.
-
They. Can. Literally. Send. Them. To. The. Committee. Right. Now. There are no restrictions on sending it there. The FBI had narrow parameters (and for good reason, because it's a giant ploy to waste time). The Committee is who needs them - and who the FBI would give it to.
-
That's not how it works. They HAVE sent information. But the Committee hasn't officially decided to consider it. The FBI could have contacted any of the Ramirez witnesses within a few hours without delay.
-
If there is a statement submitted, it will be considered. It has already happened with regard to many other submissions in the last few weeks. The FBI's involvement isn't necessary, and doesn't even itself guarantee consideration (as evidenced by its immediate dismissal by Dems).
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
There would have been plenty of time to investigate the "allegations"in private if Feinstein would have started when she first received the letter month's ago...instead the Dems leaked it to the feckless media to take down a good man They're plan backfired
#DEMSWILLPAY -
They wanted to GRAND STAND and they did, so now it is time for them to SHUT THE HELL UP.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Why did the FBI need to interview Ford & Kavanaugh? You and your Senate committee did that.
-
You must know that an FBI investigation would differ greatly fr the GOP clowncar that seized the mic from their own rape prosecutor (ie “female assistant”) & set their hair on fire at the beginning of Kavanaugh’s testimony the moment she began getting close to sensitive questions
-
Time to confirm Kavanaugh.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
What’s not in it is evidence! Never has been, never will be, never was.
#SilentMajority always votes but rarely exposes their political views. No need to open oneself up to harassment by liberal and#socialist hacks.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
So basically she doesn't like the results so she is trying to make it out to be an invalid investigation
-
No basically you havent been following the story because if you had you would know that the FBI was restrained by the WH from talking to most everyone who volunteered to come forward BEFORE the report
-
Baaa goes the sheep. This is just another “it didn’t go our way, so we’re whine”. Dems are a lost cause.
-
No, that was Benghazi.
-
Comparing losing an investigation (and/or election) to the deaths of Americans in Benghazi is scumbag level, which ain’t surprising coming from lefties.
-
No, what is scumbag level is trying to turn a terrorist attack into a partisan conspiracy theory. And then doing it over and over when the first reports show that there was no big conspiracy by the Obama Administration.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.