These inquiries are only necessary because Kavanaugh lied (under oath). Once you testify, character evidence that goes to truthfulness is admissible. This has nothing to do with wanting to assault his character, and everything to do with vetting a credible claim of assault.https://twitter.com/AGHamilton29/status/1046385157173907456 …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @briebriejoy
1) These stories were focus for the full week before he even testified. What was the excuse for them then? 2) You are lying now. There is 0 evidence to support the claim that he lied about his drinking under oath. He openly admitted to drinking too much on some occasions.
4 replies 3 retweets 26 likes -
Replying to @AGHamilton29 @ag_conservative
Here’s all the proof you probably won’t read. https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying …
1 reply 3 retweets 78 likes -
Replying to @briebriejoy @ag_conservative
I read it. It’s not very good.
10 replies 0 retweets 42 likes -
You think that it isn't reasonable to expect a Supreme Court justice to understand that "all four witnesses say it didn't happen" is not an honest way of describing the fact that all four witnesses say they don't remember the party at which "it" allegedly occurred?
3 replies 0 retweets 72 likes -
I think he understands it. I think it’s also perfectly reasonable to expect in a hearing like that for him to say what he thinks the four statements amount to.
5 replies 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @michaelbd @EricLevitz and
But one of the witnesses at least says that's not what it amounts to. And he continued to misrepresent even after being called on it. Is it good behaviour for a federal judge (possibly a Supreme Court judge) to misrepresent in this way?
1 reply 1 retweet 12 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet @EricLevitz and
She says she “believes” but her sworn testimony contradicts Ford’s statement in ways that can’t be reconciled merely by lack of recollection.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @michaelbd @EricLevitz and
If only there were an instrument of the state -- say a law enforcement agency -- that had the skill set to untangle conflicting testimony. Wait: there is: the FBI. Ford wanted an FBI investigation but Kavanaugh & his allies resisted.
3 replies 1 retweet 7 likes -
The FBI is not going to untangle this, and you know it. Why are you pretending otherwise? They are going to take statements and hand them over.
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likes
They're in a better position than anyone to gather information that would either corroborate or discredit the already existing testimony of the parties.
-
-
They can’t even subpoena the doctor’s notes can they?
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @michaelbd @HeerJeet and
So why didn’t the Committee use its full subpoena power?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
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.