AND when the supplemental FBI investigation is complete and it validates Kavanaugh that this gathering never happened (which there is already sworn testimony by the ppl Ford named her female friend included) THEN EVERY @SenateDems will vote for him correct? Just call the vote!
-
-
-
Her friend said she couldn’t recall! Get your story straight.
-
Read her sworn statement, under penalty of felony. I'll wait...
-
“Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh, and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.”
-
No recollection, not “didn’t happen.”
-
Corraborated by two additional witnesses that it never happened.
-
NYET. They said they had no recollection - not that it didn’t happen. Of course, that was not before FBI agents, just via lawyers and submitted statements.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
But since there are no credible allegations, none with ANY proof, the investigation should already be over.
-
That’s what Bill Cosby said
-
A statement of the alleged victim is proof. Maybe not conclusive, but to say no proof is entirely untrue. Remember all rhe court shows where someone says “is that man here in the room today” and the witness points at him? Yeah ...
-
There is more. But since you said “any proof” that should be enough. I think you mean “there is not any proof I believe because I don’t believe Dr. Ford or the other women.”
-
If you want to be a grown up about this I am glad to have a conversation with you. If you are going to troll go back to your corner.
-
Not trolling. I’m not sure why you would characterize it that way. You said there was not any evidence to support an investigation, I pointed out that there is some evidence that would be admissible in any US court. So they investigate and find what they find.
-
Her word is worth little on it's own. Her witnesses denied her claims. It would never be investigated because the statute of limitations expired 35 years ago. Keep pretending like you don't know all of this like a good lil Democrat.
-
Background check investigations aren’t the same as criminal invesitgations, so a statute of limitations doesn’t apply for the FBI to look into this. He’s being investigated for fitness to serve on the Supreme Court, not for a criminal case against him.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Obviously he is
-
The chairman is perfectly okay with a nominee that has decades of distinguished public service and praise from female colleagues sitting the Supreme Court.
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.