2. Durbin argues that Kavanaugh testified at his 2006 confirmation hearing that the Haynes nomination "was not one of the nominations that I handled," but docs show Kavanaugh did have SOME involvement, so therefore Kavanaugh gave false testimony.
-
-
Show this thread
-
3. Durbin removes this single line from context making clear that all Kavanaugh was saying was this nom wasn't in his portfolio. This
@NRO explanation is very clear; basically replace "Pryor" with "Haynes" & "involved" with "handled."http://bit.ly/2x4HfSMShow this thread -
4. Kavanaugh wasn't trying to hide the ball; at the very same 2006 confirmation hearing, he acknowledged involvement in the Haynes nomination (but declined to give the details of confidential White House discussions).https://twitter.com/RajShah45/status/1039642541539446786 …
Show this thread -
5. Kavanaugh had also previously explained in written responses to
@SenJudiciary questions that all White House lawyers had SOME involvement in all judicial nominations.https://twitter.com/EdWhelanEPPC/status/1038848235538968576 …Show this thread -
6. In case this line of reasoning gets applied to yet another nominee (after Pryor/Pickering/Haynes), this explanation from
@RajShah45 is nice and succinct:https://twitter.com/RajShah45/status/1039642665430777856 …Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Even with MSM running cover for their stupidity, this blatantly dishonest behavior from "Democrats" is bound to impact hopes for a "blue wave" in November.
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.