Just to be clear, "he didn't *technically* commit perjury, just fudge and weasel a lot" is supposed to be an argument in Mr. Kavanaugh's favor?
-
-
-
Fair point - this was phrased too defensively (as
@EdWhelanEPPC pointed out in a subsequent tweet). My main points: (1) he had no way of knowing he had verbatim content of memos and (2) burden is on his critics to show he knew there was hacking (he didn't).
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I’m willing to forgive Kavanaugh if he did the right thing and show us shirtless torso a la Obama, Paul Ryan, and Ben Sasse. We’re only missing SCOTUS!!!
#fullTransparency -
Umm, where can I find shirtless photos of
@BenSasse? Asking for a friend. -
Oh it’s actually Jeff Flake :( I got confused
-
But that doesn’t undermine my point because Jeff Flake and his hot body are also in the senate
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
But not for ethical requirements under professional standards. EC 1-1 “of integrity... ethical responsibility” EC 1-2 “public should be protected... deficiency in... moral standards” EC 1-3 “is of good moral character” EC 1-4 “question as to... honesty”
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Once again we are now defending a potential Supreme Court Justice with the argument that you can’t prove him guilty by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Don’t know about you but my standards are higher than that.
#SCOTUS -
No. The "defense" is that he was entirely truthful, and the Dems on the committee are lying. But they're not under oath, so they will be fine.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
No way! You are going to disapprove him regardless of what he says.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
No. The burden is not to show he knew there was hacking, but to show that he got materials prepared by the Democrats. He plainly did get such materials, and lied about it.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
In 2004 Hatch asked if he received material “DERIVED from Democratic files?” to which Schumer followed up with “provided to you IN ANY WAY?” [my emphasis] and Kavanaugh's reply to both was an unequivocal “No”. This seems to make the form, and whether stolen or not, irrelevant.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Didn’t he though? I thought the one responded to “who signed this” has a word document attached
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.